ArticlePloS one2021
Estimating the cost and value of functional changes in communication ability following telepractice treatment for aphasia.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of neuropsychological rehabilitation for acquired brain injuries: Update of Stolwyk et al.'s (2019) review.Journal of neuropsychology · 2025Article
- TelePriming sentence production in aphasia.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Analyzing a Cost-Effectiveness Dataset: A Speech and Language Example for Clinicians.Seminars in speech and language · 2022Article
- Economic Evaluations of Speech and Language Therapy Interventions: A Scoping Review.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextAphasia is a post-stroke condition that can dramatically impact a person with aphasia's (PWA) communication abilities. To date, few if any studies have considered the cost and cost-effectiveness of functional change in aphasia nor considered measures of patient's value for aphasia treatment.
objectiveTo assess the cost, cost-effectiveness, and perceived value associated with improved functional communication in individuals receiving telerehabilitation treatment for aphasia.
designTwenty PWA completed between 5 and 12 telehealth rehabilitation sessions of 45-60 minutes within a 6-week time frame using a Language-Oriented Treatment (LOT) designed to address a range of language issues among individuals with aphasia. National Outcomes Measures (NOMS) comprehension and verbal expression and the ASHA Quality of Communication Life (QCL) were completed prior to and at the completion of rehabilitation to obtain baseline and treatment measures.
resultsAge, education, and race are significantly correlated with improvement in the NOMS verbal expression. African Americans (OR = 2.0917) are twice as likely as Whites to experience improvement after treatment. The likelihood of improvement also increases with each additional year of education (OR = 1.002) but decrease with age (OR = 0.9463). A total of 15 PWA showed improvement in NOMS comprehension and nine patients showed improvement in NOMS verbal expression. Improving patients attended between five and 12 treatment sessions. The average cost of improvement in NOMS comprehension was $1,152 per patient and NOMS verbal expression was $1,128 per patient with individual treatment costs varying between $540 and $1,296. However, on average, the monetary equivalent in patient's improved QCL was between $1,790.39 to $3,912,54-far exceeding the financial cost of treatment.
conclusionsWhen measuring the functional improvement of patients with aphasia, patient's quality of communication life received from treatment exceeded financial cost of services provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.