Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35108114›Full record

Trial reportClinical rehabilitation2022

A pilot economic evaluation of a feasibility trial for SUpporting wellbeing through PEeR-Befriending (SUPERB) for post-stroke aphasia.

Chris Flood, Nicholas Behn, Jane Marshall, Alan Simpson, Sarah Northcott, Shirley Thomas, Kimberley Goldsmith, Sally McVicker, Mireia Jofre-Bonet, Katerina Hilari

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Aphasia-specific or generic outcomes? a comparison of two health-related quality of life instruments for economic evaluations of aphasia treatments.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Trial
  2. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Chris FloodSchool of Health and Social Care, 4914London South Bank University, London, UK.
Nicholas BehnCentre for Language and Communication Sciences Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Jane MarshallCentre for Language and Communication Sciences Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Alan SimpsonFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Kings College London, London, UK.
Sarah NorthcottCentre for Language and Communication Sciences Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Shirley ThomasDivision of Rehabilitation & Ageing, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kimberley GoldsmithKing's Clinical Trials Unit, Kings College London, London, UK.
Sally McVickerCentre for Language and Communication Sciences Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Mireia Jofre-BonetOffice of Health Economics4616, London, UK.
Katerina HilariCentre for Language and Communication Sciences Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2091-4849
City, University of London · GBKing's College London · GBLondon South Bank University · GBOffice Of Health Economics · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the feasibility of a full economic evaluation of usual care plus peer-befriending versus usual care control, and potential cost-effectiveness of peer-befriending for people with aphasia. To report initial costs, ease of instruments' completion and overall data completeness.

designPilot economic evaluation within a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

settingCommunity, England.

participantsPeople with post-stroke aphasia and low levels of psychological distress.

interventionAll participants received usual care; intervention participants received six peer-befriending visits between randomisation and four months. MAIN MEASURES: Costs were collected on the stroke-adapted Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI) for health, social care and personal out-of-pocket expenditure arising from care for participants and carers at 4- and 10-months post-randomisation. Health gains and costs were reported using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the EQ-5D-5L. Mean (CI) differences for costs and health gains were reported and uncertainty represented using non-parametric bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

results56 participants were randomised. Mean age was 70.1 (SD 13.4). Most (

conclusionsEconomic data can be collected from participants with post-stroke aphasia, indicating a full economic evaluation within a definitive trial is feasible. A larger study is needed to demonstrate further cost-effectiveness of peer-befriending.

Indexed as

AphasiaAgedCaregiversCost-Benefit AnalysisFeasibility StudiesHumansPeer GroupaphasiaEconomic evaluationfeasibility studymoodpeer-befriendingstroke

Identifiers

PMID35108114
PMCPMC8941719
OpenAlexW3212093112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.