Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40100094›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of language & communication disorders

The core components of clinical planning for Comprehensive, High-dose Aphasia Treatment (CHAT): A task analysis.

Rachel Levine, Jade Dignam, Kirstine Shrubsole, Marie-Pier McSween, Annie J Hill, David A Copland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of language & communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rachel LevineQueensland Aphasia Research Centre (QARC), School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8229-4564
Jade DignamQueensland Aphasia Research Centre (QARC), School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0366-6719
Kirstine ShrubsoleQueensland Aphasia Research Centre (QARC), School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7805-2447
Marie-Pier McSweenQueensland Aphasia Research Centre (QARC), School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1614-5127
Annie J HillQueensland Aphasia Research Centre (QARC), School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3907-8369
David A CoplandQueensland Aphasia Research Centre (QARC), School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2257-4270

Funding

Annie J Hill was in a postdoctoral fellowship funded by the NHMRC-funded Centre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation. Kirstine Shrubsole is supported by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant (2026816)The CHAT and TeleCHAT research projects were funded via the Queensland Aphasia Research Centre, which was funded through philanthropic gifts and The University of Queensland strategic fundingThis research was funded via an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship (via The University of Queensland)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntensive comprehensive aphasia programmes (ICAPs) deliver intensive aphasia rehabilitation via a cohort approach, aligning with the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification for Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). ICAPs are an effective treatment approach for aphasia rehabilitation, and their implementation within healthcare settings is currently being investigated. However, there are challenges associated with selecting and tailoring evidence-based treatments for delivery within ICAPs and supportive processes for selecting and tailoring therapy are required. To address this challenge, structured and collaborative clinical planning has been incorporated as a key element of one modified ICAP (mICAP), the Comprehensive, High-dose Aphasia Treatment (CHAT) programme. CHAT provides 50 h of personalized, goal-directed therapy for language impairment and function across 8 weeks. Our current understanding of how clinical planning is conducted for this programme is limited.

aims(1) To identify and define the individual tasks performed as part of a structured, collaborative clinical planning process for CHAT and its telerehabilitation counterpart TeleCHAT; and (2) to understand speech pathologists' perspectives of the key components, roles and resources for clinical planning.

methodsA mixed methods hierarchical task analysis (HTA) approach was utilized to analyse observations of 10 goal-setting sessions and planning discussions of 13 patients across two CHAT and TeleCHAT cohorts. Focus groups and interviews with seven speech pathologists and two speech pathology leaders involved in delivering or supporting the delivery of the programmes were also conducted. Clinical planning tasks, personnel involved and resources used were iteratively built into a task analysis framework. Perspectives on the key elements of clinical planning were obtained and analysed using deductive qualitative content analysis.

resultsSeven clinical planning tasks, comprising 25 subtasks, were identified across CHAT and TeleCHAT: assessment and analysis, goal-setting, an initial planning meeting, scheduling and coordination, resource preparation, a midway planning meeting, and planning throughout therapy. One additional task was identified for TeleCHAT: identify and prepare technology. Identifying appropriate patients for CHAT and TeleCHAT was considered a precursor to clinical planning. Each clinical planning task was perceived as essential for its success. The involvement of both clinical and research teams and access to resources to structure clinical planning tasks were also described as key elements. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: Clinical planning is a central component of CHAT and TeleCHAT, involving a number of multifaceted processes. Understanding how clinical planning is executed in practice is the first step towards implementing ICAPs and mICAPs such as CHAT and TeleCHAT in other settings. Understanding the factors that influence the implementation of the clinical planning process is needed to further inform this translation. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Speech pathologists experience challenges selecting and tailoring evidence-based aphasia therapy, and support for clinical planning has been reported to facilitate the delivery of ICAPs. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This study comprehensively describes the process of clinical planning for the CHAT and TeleCHAT programmes, two Australian-modified ICAPs (mICAPS), and is amongst a few descriptions of treatment mapping processes in broader aphasia rehabilitation practice. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The detailed description of clinical planning processes, in addition to key resources and personnel for CHAT and TeleCHAT, may assist speech pathology teams in improving clinical planning practices. It is a key preliminary step in translating structured, collaborative clinical planning processes into aphasia rehabilitation practice.

Indexed as

AphasiaLanguage TherapyPatient Care PlanningSpeech-Language PathologyAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTask Performance and AnalysisTelerehabilitationaphasia rehabilitationclinical planningcomprehensive aphasia programmesevidence‐based practiceintensivespeech pathologytask analysis

Identifiers

PMID40100094
PMCPMC11917461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.