ArticlePloS one2026
Characterizing the linguistic profiles, training needs, and caseloads of speech language pathologists providing clinical services to multilingual people with aphasia: The international Multilingual Aphasia Practices (MAP) consensus group survey.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- Broca's biases in modern aphasiology.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Globally, there is still limited understanding of how Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) assess and treat multilingual people with aphasia (MPWA). This article presents results from the Multilingual Aphasia Practices (MAP) survey-an extensive international study involving 407 SLPs working across 60 countries. The MAP survey explored: 1) the multilingual background of SLPs and the languages they incorporate into service delivery, 2) their knowledge and professional training related to multilingualism and multilingual aphasia, and 3) their workplace contexts and client profiles. A large proportion of respondents (79.7%) identified as multilingual and reported using numerous languages in their practice. However, formal training in multilingualism was often minimal. Only 25.06% had completed a course focused on multilingualism, and just 10.07% took a full course specific to multilingual aphasia. Most participants (87.2%) reported major gaps in knowledge and training, particularly regarding best-practice recommendations, supervised clinical experience, and guidance on assessment and intervention for MPWA. Many expressed a strong desire for additional professional development in these areas. Clinical exposure to MPWA varied widely. While 27% of respondents reported daily contact, 26.1% encountered MPWA once or twice per week, and 22.8% indicated that they worked with MPWA only a few days per month. Overall, our findings point to persistent and widespread global gaps in training, resources, and clinical readiness for working with MPWA. The results underscore an urgent need to enhance multilingualism-focused education in SLP programs, establish international best-practice frameworks, develop and disseminate culturally and linguistically appropriate assessment and treatment materials.
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.