Telepractice in the Assessment and Treatment of Individuals with Aphasia: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
Telepractice involves the application of technology to deliver services over a geographical distance. Studies in which telepractice procedures were used in the assessment or treatment of individuals with aphasia were reviewed. Systematic searches identified 10 studies meeting inclusion criteria. These studies were evaluated in terms of the: (a) characteristics of the participants, (b) technology utilized (c), services delivered via telepractice (d), research methodology, and (e) results and conclusions of the study. Telepractice was used by speech-language pathologists and the allied health professionals to assist with the delivery of services to participants with aphasia by their caretakers or clinicians. The services delivered included appraisal, diagnostic assessments, interventions, and consultation. This review suggests that telepractice is a viable method of service delivery for individuals with aphasia and warrants additional research. Guidelines for practitioners and potential directions for future research are discussed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Teletherapy has increasingly been considered in the management of adult neurogenic communication disorders as a potential means to overcome barriers of access to treatment.
“In the last decade, teletherapy has increasingly been considered in the management of adult neurogenic communication disorders as a potential means to overcome the barriers of access to treatment caused by distance, lack of specialist availability, and impaired mobility in patients.”
From <p>Investigating the utility of teletherapy in individuals with primary progressive aphasia</p> (2019) · cites this paper as [50]
The Conclusion (page not available) says telepractice can make aphasia services available in geographically remote areas and reach patients with physical mobility limitations. The Introduction describes the development of telepractice, but the review focuses on aphasia rather than adult neurogenic communication disorders generally, and our copy does not identify lack of specialist availability as an access barrier. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTeletherapy shows promising outcomes in the management of chronic aphasia, dysarthria, voice disorders and Alzheimer's dementia.
“Teletherapy allows the individual to access services from the comfort of their home and shows promising outcomes in the management of chronic aphasia, dysarthria, voice disorders and Alzheimer’s dementia.”
From <p>Investigating the utility of teletherapy in individuals with primary progressive aphasia</p> (2019) · cites this paper as [50]
The Results (Outcomes; page not available) report that telepractice interventions for people with aphasia were feasible and effective, and the Methods (Inclusion Criteria; page not available) give home-based delivery as an example. The review does not establish outcomes specifically for chronic aphasia or for dysarthria, voice disorders, or Alzheimer’s dementia. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredResearch in stroke-induced aphasia has suggested that treatment outcomes between teletherapy and traditional in-person treatment are equivalent.
“Research in stroke-induced aphasia has suggested that treatment outcomes between teletherapy and traditional in-person treatment are equivalent.50,51”
From <p>Investigating the utility of teletherapy in individuals with primary progressive aphasia</p> (2019) · cites this paper as [50]
The Results > Outcomes section says telepractice interventions for people with aphasia were equally effective as in-person interventions, and the Discussion describes the services as equivalent. The review does not establish that this treatment comparison specifically applies to stroke-induced aphasia; its stated population is people with aphasia more broadly. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe effect of aphasia telerehabilitation is still unclear, with low strength of current evidence on efficiency.
“Although there is a growing literature regarding aphasia telerehabilitation, the effect of this new form of aphasia service is however to date still unclear, with low strength of current evidence on efficiency [7, 8].”
From The effect of augmented speech-language therapy delivered by telerehabilitation on poststroke aphasia—a pilot randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
The Discussion’s Future Research section says investigations are scarce and calls for more robust, controlled studies, supporting concern about the strength of the evidence. But the Outcomes and Conclusion sections describe telepractice as effective for people with aphasia; the review does not characterize its effect as still unclear. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 138
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [15]Kaplan E Goodglass H Weintraub S 2001 Boston Naming Test (2nd ed) Baltimore, MD Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- [23]Porch BE 1967 The Porch Index of Communicative Ability Palo Alto, CA Consulting Psychologist Press
- Authors
- Hall, N., Boisvert, M., & Steele, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- Venue
- International Journal of Telerehabilitation
- Publisher
- Hawaii Pacific University
- Published
- 2013-06-11
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-38
- ISSN
- 1945-2020 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4296832
- OpenAlex
- W2040683486
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 0.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Telerehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- International Journal of Telerehabilitation (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Keywords
- telepractice, aphasia, remote assessment, remote intervention, teleconsultation, telemedicine, service delivery
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
