ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2023
Use and Perceived Effectiveness of Communication Modes Reported by Persons With Primary Progressive Aphasia.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communication Strategies Used in Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Scoping Review.Dementia (London, England) · 2026Article
- The Progressive Aphasia Communication Toolkit (PACT): A Strengths-Based Approach to Multidomain Evaluation for Intervention.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- The Progressive Aphasia Communication Toolkit (PACT): a strengths-based approach to multidomain evaluation for intervention.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposePrimary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a clinical neurodegenerative dementia syndrome characterized by early, selective, and progressive language impairment. PPA onset is gradual, providing time to potentially identify additional or alternative expressive communication modes; however, reports of communication mode use and effectiveness by persons with PPA have not been described. This study characterized the use, frequency, and perceived effectiveness of communication modes reported by individuals with PPA.
methodForty-one participants with mild-to-moderate PPA completed a structured interview detailing the type, frequency, and perceived effectiveness of 12 potential communication modes, categorized by technology required (no-tech, low-tech, and high-tech). The ratio of modes used was compared across technology categories with a repeated-measures generalized linear model assuming a binomial distribution with an overall Wald chi-square statistic, followed by pairwise post hoc
resultsOf the 12 communication modes assessed, participants reported using a median of eight (range: 5-10). All participants affirmed using speech, facial expressions, and talking on the phone. Frequency and perceived effectiveness ratings for these three modes were endorsed at the "some/most of the time" level for more than 80% of the participants. No-tech mode use was significantly higher than reported high-tech and low-tech modes (
conclusionsPersons with mild-to-moderate language impairment due to PPA report using a range of communication modes with moderate-to-high frequency and perceived effectiveness. These outcomes provide practical information when considering mode refinement or expansion during intervention to maximize communication participation. Barriers to modality use may include low awareness or access, which could be queried by future studies and supported by speech and language interventions. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21614262.
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.