ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2024
What Impacts What: Clinicians' Perspectives of Causality in Aphasia Rehabilitation.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2024. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDetermining the prognosis of aphasia recovery is an important task for clinicians in the rehabilitation of persons with aphasia. Although there are many variables identified as impactful to aphasia recovery, it is less clear (a) how clinicians perceive causality in aphasia rehabilitation and (b) how prognostic variables interact with each other. This study aimed to understand causal relations between prognostic variables from the clinician perspective.
methodRatings of perceived causality were obtained from 11 clinicians serving people with aphasia. Participants were presented with 255 directed causal relations (e.g., depression → aphasia severity), representing a total of 18 demographic, diagnostic, and psychosocial variables. Participants rated the perceived causality on a Likert scale from 0 (
resultsA perceived causal network showed differences among variables in their perceived causality. There were many causal relations identified, particularly between diagnostic and psychosocial variables. The variables with the strongest perceived causality were predominantly psychosocial variables, including depression, social support, and participation. However, these psychosocial variables were also the variables that clinicians had the least frequent access to information about. There were also notable differences between participants in their perceived causal networks.
conclusionsClinicians hold valuable information about aphasia rehabilitation, including what variables are important to aphasia recovery. Understanding the complexity of interaction among prognostic variables and obtaining data from clinicians about prognostic variables and causality will advance the rehabilitation of aphasia. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27105865.
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.