Preliminary analysis from a novel treatment targeting the exchange of new information within storytelling for people with nonfluent aphasia and their partners

Carragher, Marcella; Sage, Karen; Conroy, Paul

doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.988110

Cited by 29 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rautakoski, 2011aRautakoski, , 2011b, family therapy (n=3) (Nichols et al, 1996;Borenstein et al, 1987;Währborg & Bohrenstein, 1989), or unique name/ features e.g. learner-centred conversation training programme (n=2) (Sorin-Peters, 2004; Sorin-Peters & Patterson, 2014), interactive storytelling therapy (n=1) (Carragher et al, 2015) and conversational coaching (n=1) (Hopper et al, 2002). Many however were unspecified, using a range of terms: conversational treatment, communication partners, conversation partners therapy, conducting conversation, aphasia couples therapy, solution focused aphasia therapy, recognition training, multimodality communication, therapy using conversation analysis, and combining neuropsychology and pragmatic approaches; and structured/ psycho-education programme for carers, residential family based intervention, group communication training for carers, and (social) support course/ group.…”

Section: Narrative Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Small group sizes and group provision were believed to maximise peer learning and support, and joint problem-solving (Hinckley & Packard, 2001;Purdy & Hindenlang, 2005). To facilitate generalisation to everyday use, Carragher et al (2015) outlined four essential or active ingredients that were hypothesized to contribute to generalisation of behaviours to untrained tasks, which was the motivation for their study.…”

Section: Tidier Item 2: Why: "Describe Any Rationale Theory or Goalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generic video clipseither purposively created (e.g., instructional videos in Kagan et al, 2001), recordings of other CPs speaking with PWA (Beckley et al, 2013)), or downloaded from YouTube (e.g., Carragher et al 2015) were used to raise awareness generally about conversation and in particular about conversations between PWA and their CPs. The overall aim was to identify or illustrate skills and strategies (e.g.…”

Section: Tidier Item 2: Why: "Describe Any Rationale Theory or Goalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reporting interventions in communication partner training: a critical review and narrative synthesis of the literature

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Communication partner training (CPT) is an umbrella term for a complex behavioural intervention for communications partners (CPs) of people with aphasia (PWA) and possibly PWA themselves, with many interacting components, deployed in flexible ways. Recent systematic reviews (Simmons-Mackie, Raymer, Armstrong, Holland, & Cherney, 2010; Simmons-Mackie, Raymer, & Cherney, 2016) have highlighted the effectiveness of CPT in addressing the skills of conversation partners and the communicative participation of people with aphasia but have suggested that CPT has been variably delivered, with no clear picture of what the essential elements of CPT are and how CPT is expected to achieve its results through hypothesized mechanisms of change (Coster, 2013). Aim: This paper aims broadly to consider specification of CPT and describes how CPT has been conducted overall and in relation to treatment recipients. Recommendations for CPT and areas for future research are considered. Methods & Procedures: A critical review and narrative synthesis was carried out through: i) the systematic application of the 12-item TIDieR checklist (Hoffmann et al., 2014) to the 56 studies appraised in the Simmons-Mackie et al. (2010; 2016) reviews, providing a quantitative overview of the completeness of CPT intervention reporting; and ii) a qualitative synthesis of the reviewed CPT literature according to TIDieR items. Results: Half of the TIDieR checklist items were reported by 71% or more of the studies, and the rest of the items were reported by 0-63% of studies. TIDieR items relating to the treatment (goal, rationale or theory of essential elements, materials and procedures) and provision (provider, mode, timing, dose) were more frequently reported, however the level of detail provided was often inadequate or incomplete. The interventions were insufficiently specified to enable replication for most of the studies considered. The most infrequently reported items were: name, location, intervention tailoring and modification, and planned and Reporting interventions in communication partner training 3 actual intervention adherence/fidelity. Conclusion: For a better understanding of an intervention, it is necessary to identify and describe potentially central elements and perhaps especially in complex interventions as CPT, where it is likely also more difficult. Whilst the reviewed CPT studies are on average reporting on slightly more than half of the TIDieR items, they are overall insufficiently detailed. Some items appear easier to report on, whereas other items have not been attended to, are too complex in nature to give a full report on, or simply have not been relevant for the individual study to include.

show abstract

Section: Narrative Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tidier Item 2: Why: "Describe Any Rationale Theory or Goalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tidier Item 2: Why: "Describe Any Rationale Theory or Goalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reporting interventions in communication partner training: a critical review and narrative synthesis of the literature

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The studies on discourse intervention that we found comprised three distinct approaches to the improvement of discourse (in some studies, more than one approach is used). One approach targets word and sentence production (simple and complex clauses) within discourse [56,[70][71][72][73][74]; another involves massed practice of whole discourses, using AphasiaScripts [75][76][77] and a third focuses on supporting participants to improve their discourse macrostructure using story grammar [56,64,68,78]. Overall, the findings from these studies were positive, with clients' improving in language use, the amount and quality of information conveyed, and how the information was structured, although it was not the case that all three elements improved in every case.…”

Section: Discourse Therapy For Adults With Aphasiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Discourse: Assessment and Therapy

Dipper¹,

Pritchard²

2017

Advances in Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse is essential for interaction and for the expression of ideas, feelings and opinions. Telling personal stories, such as talking about your day or recounting what happened in the playground, is essential for communication and establishing relationships. However, due to their language impairments, people with aphasia (PWA) and children with developmental language disorder (DLD) often have problems with everyday discourse which impact on their lives more widely. While improvement in language skills is supported by speech-language pathology (therapy), it tends to focus on smaller linguistic components, such as single words and sentences. This chapter outlines how speakers construct discourse in everyday situations and focuses on the meanings that people use discourse to convey, as well as the lexical and grammatical resources they use to convey these meanings. Current methods for discourse analysis will be outlined and key developments in narrative discourse production therapy will be reviewed.

show abstract

“…The wider impact of our interventions, such as those related to increased participation or improved self-esteem, are viewed here outside the realm of generalisation although are considered no less important to evaluating aphasia interventions. The framework proposed within this paper distinguishes between therapies that target a single level (as in the papers of Croot et al and Kiran et al), and those that target multiple linguistic levels (as in Edmonds, Obermeyer, & Kernan, 2015;Whitworth et al, 2015;and Carragher, Sage, & Conroy, 2015). The literature is then reviewed in terms of whether the focus of therapy is on single words (as in Croot et al), sentences (Kiran et al), single words and sentences (Edmonds et al) or single words, sentences and discourse (Whitworth et al and Carragher et al).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%