ArticleBMJ open2024
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "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
- Influence of the Big Five personality traits on intensive therapy adherence within people with aphasia.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesClinical guidelines recommend high-frequency speech therapy for people with aphasia. Little is known about the experiences of people with aphasia with high-frequency speech therapy, why they do not receive it, what they expect from it and their general wishes and requirements for therapy. The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate the reasons for refusing high-frequency speech therapy and therapy preferences of patients with aphasia.
designAn interview study with people with aphasia.
settingInterviewees were recruited via snowball sampling in different settings of healthcare system (eg, speech and language practices, self-help groups, clinics of neurorehabilitation).
participantsTwenty-one people with aphasia and one relative participated in semi-structured interviews.
resultsWe identified five categories of not using high-frequency speech therapy: patient-related factors, health system-related factors, disease-related factors, social-economic factors and organisational factors. Most reasons for non-utilisation are within the domain of the healthcare system and are partly attributable to personnel shortages in care provision and knowledge deficits among healthcare practitioners. Patient therapy preferences notably pertain to the enhancement of speech therapy services, encompassing sessions both inclusive and exclusive of family members as well as the facilitation of information dissemination.
conclusionsAs expected, there were indications of a lack of staff, poor care in rural areas and the influence of being affected by aphasia for a longer period on utilisation behaviour. These factors in the healthcare system and organisational factors are not unknown to those with practical experience, and some of them must and could be changed quickly. This would require a change from the established face-to-face setting in presence to sufficient digital therapy adjuvants. The results of patient-related factors could be a further reason to reflect on speech therapy and its settings and to view and treat people with aphasia in a more holistic, less language-focused way.
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.