ArticleAphasiology2025
A Systematic Scoping Review of Measures Used to Evaluate Treatment-Induced Changes in Depression, Anxiety, and Chronic Stress in People with Post-Stroke Aphasia.
Article in Aphasiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Molecular pathways linking chronic psychological stress to accelerated aging: mechanisms and interventions.Frontiers in aging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: People with aphasia have an increased risk of developing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and chronic stress - all of which interfere with rehabilitation and limit functional outcomes. Interventions addressing the mental health needs of people with aphasia are critically important and rapidly emerging. Most self-rated questionnaires are highly language-dependent. It is unclear how aphasia researchers are managing this potential study limitation. Aims: To examine how treatment-induced changes in depression, anxiety, and chronic stress are currently being measured in people with stroke-induced aphasia and identify areas of concern and implications for future research. Methods & Procedures: PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched in February 2024. Key search terms included "depression", "anxiety", "chronic stress", "measurement", "aphasia", "stroke", and "treatment". Quantitative intervention studies reporting pre-post and/or group comparisons of depression, anxiety, or chronic stress, as either a primary or secondary outcome, with samples consisting of at least 50% of people with aphasia (or those reporting separate data for people with aphasia) were included in the review. Psychometric properties of the 10 most commonly used measures in the included studies were also evaluated. Outcomes & Results: Thirty-six studies (out of 1518 screened) met inclusion criteria (13 randomized controlled trials; 23 non-randomized), from which 33 distinct measures were identified, including observer/clinician-rated (proxy), language-dependent self-rated, as well as visual scale/picture-supported measures. Most frequently used measures include the Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire (SADQ-21 and SADQ-Hospital) and Visual Analog Mood Scale (VAMS) for depression; the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Anxiety subscale (HADS-A) for anxiety; the modified Perceived Stress Scale (mPSS) for chronic stress. Most significant treatment effects reported by studies were derived from measures with weak psychometric support for use with people with aphasia. Conclusions: Measures used to evaluate treatment-induced changes in depression, anxiety, and chronic stress in people with aphasia varied widely across studies. This variability may stem from a lack of validated measures available for this population and/or the absence of best practice recommendations for measuring mental health outcomes in people with aphasia. Given these limitations, caution is urged when interpreting treatment studies using current measures, and there is an urgent need for valid and reliable self-report measures specifically designed with and tested for people with aphasia.
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.