No abstract

Background: Evidence-based recommendations for a core outcome set (COS; minimum set of outcomes) for aphasia treatment research have been developed (the Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia-ROMA, COS). Five recommended core outcome constructs: communication, language, quality of life, emotional well-being and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment, were identified through three international consensus studies. Constructs were paired with outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) during an international consensus meeting (ROMA-1). Before the current study (ROMA-2), agreement had not been reached on OMIs for the constructs of communication or patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment. Aim: To establish consensus on a communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. Methods & Procedures: Research methods were based on recommendations from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Participants with expertise in design and conduct of aphasia trials, measurement instrument development/testing and/or communication outcome measurement were recruited through an open call. Before the consensus meeting, participants agreed on a definition of communication, identified appropriate OMIs, extracted their measurement properties and established criteria for their quality assessment. During the consensus meeting they short-listed OMIs and participants without conflicts of interest voted on the two most highly ranked instruments. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by ≥ 70% of participants. Outcomes & Results: In total, 40 researchers from nine countries participated in ROMA-2 (including four facilitators and three-panel members who participated in pre-meeting activities only). A total of 20 OMIs were identified and evaluated. Eight short-listed communication measures were further evaluated for their measurement properties and ranked. Participants in the consensus meeting (n = 33) who did not have conflicts of interest (n = 29) voted on the top two ranked OMIs: The Scenario Test (TST) and the Communication Activities of Daily Living-3 (CADL-3). TST received 72% (n = 21) of 'yes' votes and the CADL-3 received 28% (n = 8) of 'yes' votes. Conclusions & Implications: Consensus was achieved that TST was the preferred communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. It is currently available in the original Dutch version and has been adapted into English, German and Greek. Further consideration must be given to the best way to measure communication in people with mild aphasia. Development of a patientreported measure for satisfaction with/impact of treatment and multilingual versions of all OMIs of the COS is still required. Implementation of the ROMA COS would improve research outcome measurement and the quality, relevance, transparency, replicability and efficiency of aphasia treatment research.

No abstract

BackgroundPrognostication is a complex clinical task that involves forming a prediction about recovery and communicating prognostic information to patients and families. In aphasia, recovery is difficult to predict and evidence‐based guidance on prognosis delivery is lacking. Questions about aphasia prognosis commonly arise, but it is unknown how speech pathologists formulate and deliver information about expected recovery. An understanding of current practice in prognostication is needed to develop evidence‐based guidelines for this process, and is necessary in order to ensure successful future implementation of recommended practice regarding prognosis delivery.AimsTo identify the factors speech pathologists consider important when responding to questions about aphasia prognosis; to examine how they respond in different scenarios; and to evaluate their current attitudes towards aphasia prognostication.Methods & ProceduresA total of 54 speech pathologists participated in an online survey featuring hypothetical aphasia prognosis delivery scenarios, short‐response questions and ratings. Open responses were analysed thematically. Multiple‐choice responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and non‐parametric tests.Outcomes & ResultsSpeech pathologists regarded factors relating to the nature and severity of post‐stroke deficits, an individual's level of motivation and the availability of social support as most important for forming an aphasia prognosis. When delivering prognostic information, considerations of the recipient's emotional well‐being, hope and expectations, and comprehension of information were regarded as most important. Speech pathologists’ prognosis responses varied in content and manner of communication. The content of the responses included predictions of recovery and information about various attributes and activities contributing to recovery. Prognostic information was most frequently communicated through qualitative probability expressions, general statements and uncertainty‐based expressions. A need for more professional support in aphasia prognostication was indicated.Conclusions & ImplicationsThere is variation in the way speech pathologists respond to questions about aphasia prognosis, and it is unknown how these conversations affect people with aphasia and their significant others. Further research to understand speech pathologists’ clinical reasoning and professional support needs, and the perspectives of people living with aphasia, may help to develop an evidence‐based approach to prognostication in aphasia.What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subject Questions about aphasia prognosis are difficult to answer. Current methods for predicting aphasia recovery are yet to demonstrate the reliability and individual specificity required for clinical application. At present, there is no evidence‐based guidance or support for prognosis delivery in aphasia. What this study adds to existing knowledge There is variation in the way speech pathologists predict aphasia recovery, the prognostic information they deliver and the manner in which they communicate prognoses. Current approaches to aphasia prognostication are reliant on experience and professional judgement, and speech pathologists desire more support for undertaking this task. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Speech pathologists lack a consistent approach to aphasia prognostication and desire more support in this task. The present findings offer insight into clinician attitudes and practice, and provide a direction for future research to establish best‐practice guidelines for this complex and demanding area of aphasia management.

No abstract