ArticleAphasiology2019
Life Activity Choices by People with Aphasia: Repeated Interviews and Proxy Agreement.
Article in Aphasiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploration of collaborative goal setting in occupational therapy for adults with aphasia.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2025Article
- Exploring the Perspectives of Parents of Individuals with Autism from Low-Resourced Communities to Inform Family Navigator Programs.Journal of developmental and physical disabilities · 2024Article
- Development and assessment of a verbal response scale for the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in a low-literacy, non-western population.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To characterize life activities that people with aphasia want to do, to estimate consistency in selections over time, and to replicate previous findings about the ability of family members and friends to identify their loved ones' activity preferences. Methods: We administered the Life Interests and Values (LIV) Cards to 26 people with aphasia, asking them which of 95 depicted life activities they wanted to do more in their lives. Half the activity cards were presented again one to ten weeks later. Twenty family members or friends responded as proxies by selecting from a questionnaire with the same items. Results: Participants with aphasia selected diverse activities, though as a group they identified significantly more activities from the "social" activity category than from the "home and community," "creative and relaxing," or "physical" categories. Across the repeated interviews, they selected identical activities on average 78% of the time. Item-to-item agreement between people with aphasia and their proxy responders was significantly lower at 69%. Discussion: People with aphasia have diverse activity interests and are reliable informants about their preferences. Because significant others have limited ability to predict these choices, their impressions are inadequate substitutes for direct interviews.
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.