ArticleAphasiology2026
Something old, something borrowed, something new: frameworks to guide cultural adaptations and their documentation in aphasia treatments.
Article in Aphasiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: There is a crucial need to improve cultural and linguistic representation in the field of aphasia research and in clinical practice. One way to increase representation in the field of aphasiology is by adapting treatments to the diverse cultures and languages of the world. Adapting existing evidence-based interventions for diverse cultural contexts increases fit, acceptability, engagement, and access to aphasia interventions. However, such adaptations must be approached systematically and with careful documentation of the process. This paper aims to 1) present frameworks that can guide cultural and linguistic adaptations of aphasia treatments (i.e. bottom-up and top-down approaches), and 2) present a framework that can guide the documentation of critical elements that must be considered and reported when adapting aphasia treatments. Methods and Procedures: This discussion paper examines bottom-up and top-down approaches for adapting aphasia treatments to diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. It also introduces a practical framework to support researchers and clinicians in systematically documenting these adaptations. The arguments presented here are based on a critical review of the relevant literature. Illustrative examples are provided to demonstrate how these approaches and the framework can be applied. Outcomes & Results: The approaches and the framework discussed in this paper can help clinicians and researchers adapt evidence-based treatments for aphasia, document their adaptation process, and trace a path for future treatment modifications. This paper could provide much-needed support for increasing aphasia intervention development and research for diverse cultures and languages, thereby increasing access to appropriate interventions for
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.