The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Telerehabilitation for aphasia – protocol of a pragmatic, exploratory, pilot randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-018-2588-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hege Prag Øra, Melanie Kirmess, Marian C. Brady, Ingvild Elisabeth Winsnes, Silje Merethe Hansen, Frank Becker |
| Abstract |
The Cochrane review on the effectiveness of speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke suggests intensity of therapy is a key predictor for outcome. Current aphasia services cannot provide intervention at the intensity observed within trial contexts because of resource limitations. Telerehabilitation could widen access to speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in geographically remote contexts and reduce the time spent on travel by the therapist and patient. The current academic literature within this field is in its infancy, with few trials of speech and language therapy (SLT) delivered by videoconference. Our pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will explore feasibility aspects and effectiveness of telerehabilitation for aphasia in addition to standard SLT. Our study is a pragmatic, exploratory, pilot randomized controlled trial, where participants will be randomized to a telerehabilitation group or a control group. Both groups receive standard SLT (usual care) but the telerehabilitation group receives an additional 5 h of telerehabilitation per week over 4 weeks through videoconference. This additional telerehabilitation focuses on spoken language with an emphasis on word naming. We aim to include 40 patients in each group, with inclusion criteria being aphasia any time post stroke. Participants will be assessed blindly at pre-randomization (baseline), and 4 weeks and 4 months after randomization. The primary endpoint is naming ability 3 months after the completed intervention, measured by the Norwegian Basic Aphasia Assessment (NGA) naming subtest. Secondary endpoints include other subtests of the NGA, the VAST (Verb and Sentence Test) subtest sentence production, Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI) and the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life scale (SAQOL-39). Experiences of patients and SLPs with telerehabilitation are assessed using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Statistical between group comparisons will be in line with an intention-to-treat analysis. This pilot RCT of intensive language training by videoconference will contribute new scientific evidence to the field of aphasia telerehabilitation. Here, we describe our trial which will explore the feasibility of telerehabilitation for aphasia as an intervention, our choice of primary and secondary outcome measures and proposed analyses. Our trial will provide information for the development and delivery of future definitive RCTs. ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02768922 . Registered on 11 May 2016. Last updated on 17 November 2017. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 195 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 7% |
| Researcher | 13 | 7% |
| Professor | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 13% |
| Unknown | 83 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 11% |
| Unknown | 94 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,078,158
of 26,626,316 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#3,255
of 6,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,760
of 346,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#103
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,626,316 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.