Cited by 20Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Telerehabilitation for aphasia – protocol of a pragmatic, exploratory, pilot randomized controlled trial

Open access
Øra, Hege Prag, Kirmess, Melanie, Brady, Marian C., Winsnes, Ingvild Elisabeth, Hansen, Silje Merethe, Becker, Frank·2018·Trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. METHOD/DESIGN: 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. DISCUSSION: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02768922 . Registered on 11 May 2016. Last updated on 17 November 2017.

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 · 10.1186/s13063-018-2588-5

Cites

28 of 28 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Øra, H. P., Kirmess, M., Brady, M. C., Winsnes, I. E., Hansen, S. M., & Becker, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
  • Sunnaas sykehus (NO)
Corresponding author
Øra, Hege Prag
Venue
Trials
Published
2018-04-02
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
208-208
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2795427419
Cited by
20
References
28
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (Glasgow Caledonian University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (2015037)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
telerehabilitation, aphasia, stroke, speech therapy, videoconferencing, word naming, treatment intensity, feasibility, sentence production, quality of life
MeSH terms
Telerehabilitation, Stroke Rehabilitation, Aphasia, Humans, Language Therapy, Pilot Projects, Research Design, Speech Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Sample Size, Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic

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