ArticleAphasiology2021
"It's like a lifeboat": stakeholder perspectives of an intensive comprehensive aphasia program (ICAP)".
Article in Aphasiology, 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Then you are left on your own": barriers to guideline-based speech and language therapy for aphasia along the patient journey in the German-speaking healthcare context.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- An Intensive and Comprehensive Aphasia Program Versus a Conventional Speech and Language Therapy: A Dose-Controlled, Crossover Experimental Study.Stroke research and treatment · 2026Article
- Article
- Reversing the Ruin: Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Restoration After Stroke.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2022Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Intensive comprehensive aphasia programs (ICAPs) have gained popularity in recent years. Outcomes from ICAPs have demonstrated measurable improvements for most who take part, but how do people with aphasia and their family members experience an ICAP? Aim: The aim of this paper was to explore, through qualitative interviews, the experiences of persons with aphasia and their family members who took part in an ICAP. Methods & Procedures: Twelve interviews were conducted with persons with aphasia and family members regarding their experiences with the ICAP that they had just completed. Nine persons with aphasia were interviewed with their family members and three chose to take part in the interview alone. The Framework Analysis method was used to identify themes from the transcribed interviews. Outcomes & Results: The interviewees discussed four themes related to treatment, psychosocial environments, physical environments, and outcomes. The interviewees remarked on the challenges that were provided by the treatment and how the treatment was different from previous treatment. Comments were made related to the relationships the participants and families developed within the context of the program. The physical environment allowed for relationships to develop. The interviewees discussed the physical and social environment as important additional factors that contribute to the overall therapeutic effect of the ICAP. Positive outcomes were noted in language skills and psychosocial contexts. Conclusions: Based on interviewees' descriptions of this one ICAP, the concept of a therapeutic milieu was developed to describe how the intersection of the treatment, psychosocial interactions, and physical setting related to outcomes. Interviewees described how the therapeutic milieu of the ICAP was interwoven with the intensive therapy to create a "package" of therapy that led to improved outcomes. Implications for non-ICAP clinical practice is that participants linked more intensive therapy and greater social interactions with better outcomes.
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.