ArticlePloS one2026
Advancing aphasia psychological care in Ireland: A participatory study with people with aphasia and clinicians.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAphasia increases the risk of mental health issues, yet psychological care for aphasia (APC) is not routinely available. Given the significant psychosocial impact, APC requires input from multiple disciplines and settings, and necessarily responds to a person's needs, which shift over time. As a complex intervention, it is important that service providers, users, and policymakers are involved in developing effective and contextual implementation strategies. In this study, the aim was to meaningfully engage people with aphasia and inter-disciplinary aphasia clinicians to create a shared vision of ideal APC and to identify context-specific implementation considerations in Ireland.
methodsA series of interdisciplinary clinician research workshops and parallel aphasia Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) meetings were convened. Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) tools and techniques supported inclusive research spaces; and discussions were scaffolded by constructs from the implementation science framework, Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). PPI contributors inputted into planning the clinician workshops and reviewed and commented on the discussion summaries.
resultsKey principles for APC and Ireland-specific implementation considerations were identified. These included the need for a unified vision, clear clinical roles and referral pathways, improved team structures and resources, clinician training, and active involvement of people with aphasia in APC design.
conclusionsThrough NPT and PLA informed workshops, people living with aphasia and clinicians generated ideas about how an interdisciplinary coordinated model of APC might be developed and implemented. The findings offer early guidance for developing coordinated, interdisciplinary APC in Ireland. The participatory implementation approach may be adapted to other conditions or contexts to support locally relevant intervention planning.
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.