Trial reportAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2023
Efficacy of Aphasia Group Conversation Treatment via Telepractice on Language and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.
Trial report 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeConversation treatment for people with aphasia (PwA) can lead to significant changes in language impairment and quality of life. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the greater use of telepractice treatment delivery. However, there is little evidence regarding the efficacy of telepractice conversation groups. This study investigated the effects of telepractice group conversation treatment on standardized measures of language function and socially oriented/patient-reported outcomes compared to in-person and no-treatment control data.
methodThis study used a mixed within- and between-groups design (repeated measure/pre-post treatment), with a single-subject delayed treatment design (Shadish & Rindskopf, 2007) to establish baseline, pretreatment, and posttreatment periods for the telepractice group. Telepractice results pre- and posttreatment were compared with historical in-person and no-treatment control data obtained from a larger randomized control trial (RCT) from DeDe et al. (2019). The historical comparison data were a subset of RCT participants from the same location and included six in-person participants and seven no-treatment control group participants.
resultsResults of standardized testing conducted at baseline, pretreatment, and posttreatment intervals revealed significant improvement from pre- to posttreatment on repetition and picture description tasks for the telepractice group, and significant improvement from pre- to posttreatment on the Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure, total number of relevant utterances, and percentage of complete utterances for the in-person conversation group. No significant differences were observed in the no-treatment groups.
conclusionsIn contrast to the no-treatment condition, both the in-person and telepractice conditions showed the benefits of conversation group treatment. The in-person treatment condition showed improvements in a wider number of outcome measures than the telepractice condition. Overall, the results prompt further research regarding telepractice group conversation treatment for PwA.
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.