Cited by 49Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityVoice and Speech Disorders

A life participation approach to primary progressive aphasia intervention

Open access
Khayum, Becky, Rogalski, Emily·2018·Seminars in Speech and Language

Abstract

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a clinical neurodegenerative dementia syndrome characterized by deficits in spoken and written word retrieval, word usage, and/or word comprehension. Currently, there are no effective treatments to reverse or halt the underlying disease process; however, speech–language therapy may be helpful. The Communication Bridge Care Model was developed to address the unique communication and quality of life needs of individuals living with PPA. The core elements include person-centered care with dyadic instruction for disease education, and counseling, along with tailored levels of impairment- and compensatory-based communication strategy training. Our multicomponent approach incorporates guidance from the Life Participation Approach for Aphasia, including client-directed assessment and interventions that aim to maximize functional communication and participation in desired life activities. The direct and indirect use of technology is integrated into our tailored model of care to facilitate achievement of the client's functional goals. Here, we describe how to practically apply the Communication Bridge Care Model across treatment settings, including case examples from the Communication Bridge research study. This approach to care provides an opportunity to maximize communication effectiveness and quality of life for individuals living with PPA throughout the course of disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0038-1660786

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Internet-based speech and language therapy has been effective in people with primary progressive aphasia.

    “Internet-based speech and language therapy has been effective in people with primary progressive aphasia, 78 but these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts.”

    From Advances and controversies in frontotemporal dementia: diagnosis, biomarkers, and therapeutic considerations (2022) · cites this paper as [78]

    The section on the person-centered, multicomponent dyadic approach reports improved language performance and functional communication participation in the initial Communication Bridge study. The Conclusion says the telemedicine model was feasible for people with mild to moderate PPA, but the paper says a randomized trial was still assessing its effectiveness; it does not establish effectiveness as the claim states. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [24]Weintraub S, Morhardt D. Treatment, education, and resources for non-Alzheimer dementia: one size does not fit all. Alzheimers Care Today 2005; 6 (03): 201– 214
  2. [26]McFarlane LA. Motivational interviewing: practical strategies for speech-language pathologists and audiologists. Can J Speech-Lang Pathol Audiol 2012; 36: 8– 16

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khayum, B., & Rogalski, E.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Rogalski, Emily
Venue
Seminars in Speech and Language
Published
2018-06-22
Volume
39
Issue
03
Pages
284-296
ISSN
  • 0734-0478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-9056
OpenAlex
W2809260572
Cited by
49
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4
FWCI
2.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Seminars in Speech and Language (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R56AG055425, P30AG013854, R01AG056258, R01AG055425)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC008552)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS075075)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
primary progressive aphasia, person-centred care, disease education, compensatory communication strategies, functional communication, quality of life, assistive technology, speech therapy, neurodegenerative dementia
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Quality of Life, Speech-Language Pathology, Patient-Centered Care, Aphasia, Primary Progressive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review