CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityTechnology Use by Older AdultsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Preliminary outcomes from a pilot study of personalised online supported conversation for participation intervention for people with aphasia

Cruice, Madeline, Woolf, Celia, Caute, Anna, Monnelly, Katie, Wilson, Stephanie, Marshall, Jane·2021·Aphasiology
DOI 10.1080/02687038.2020.1795076
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Aphasia negatively impacts face-to-face social participation and the difficulties that people experience using the phone exacerbate these challenges in staying in touch with family and friends. Videoconferencing enables multimodal communication, and teamed with supported conversation, could facilitate access to conversation and thereby increase social participation for people with chronic aphasia.Aims This pilot study examined whether supported conversation provided over Skype could improve people’s social participation. It reports on preliminary outcomes of this intervention on people’s social network, communication confidence, aphasia-related quality of life, and mood.Methods & Procedures 29 participants with chronic aphasia received an initial 2-hour technology training session followed by 16hours of online supported conversation for participation intervention provided by qualified or student speech and language therapists. The intervention was personalised by individualising goals in technology, communication, and participation. An observational prospective cohort study design was used with baseline, immediately post-intervention, and 8-week follow-up assessments. Measures of social network and communication confidence (primary outcome measures), and aphasia-related quality of life, life participation, and mood (secondary outcome measures) were undertaken. Shapiro-Wilk tests were conducted to examine normality of distribution of each variable. Where data were normally distributed, one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to examine the effect of time. Where data were not normally distributed, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was used.Outcomes & Results: 27 participants completed the intervention. As a group, participants reported significantly more social contacts, more life participation, and higher aphasia-related quality of life post-intervention, which were maintained. There was a group gain on the measure of communication confidence post-intervention, although this was not maintained. As a group, the participants’ mood did not significantly change through intervention and follow-up. Individual variability was noted across all outcome measures.Conclusions: These preliminary findings suggest that relatively low dose and non-intensive online supported conversation for participation intervention delivered by qualified or student speech and language therapists improved social participation in some people with aphasia and improved their quality of life. Communication confidence also improved for some, although benefits were short term. Findings make novel contributions to the existing supported conversation evidence base with positive social participation and quality of life outcomes, likely achieved by the explicit participation focus. Whilst preliminary findings are positive, study limitations need addressing. Further investigations are merited to refine the intervention and outcome measure choice and capture feasibility data. Finally, a definitive controlled trial is needed to explore the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02687038.2020.1795076

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Online formats have been shown to be very promising for people with aphasia who have problems with face-to-face conversation, especially in group settings.

    “which has been shown to be very promising for people with aphasia who have problems with face-to-face conversation, especially in group settings (Cruice et al., 2021).”

    From Use and acceptance of voice assistants among people with aphasia in Germany (2023) · cites this paper as Cruice et al., 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cruice, M., Woolf, C., Caute, A., Monnelly, K., Wilson, S., & Marshall, J.
Affiliations
  • University of London (GB)
  • University of Essex (GB)
Corresponding author
Cruice, Madeline
ORCID
Venue
Aphasiology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-07-25
Volume
35
Issue
10
Pages
1293-1317
ISSN
  • 0268-7038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5041
DOI
10.1080/02687038.2020.1795076
OpenAlex
W3043871153
Cited by
34
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
FWCI
5.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Aphasiology (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
The Barts Charity (MGU0243)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
aphasia, social participation (health and rehabilitation), videoconferencing, Skype, communication confidence, social networks, mood, personalized interventions, speech therapy, chronic aphasia, telepractice

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