PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to describe the rationale, clinical processes, and outcomes of an intensive comprehensive aphasia program (ICAP). METHOD: Seventy-three community-dwelling adults with aphasia completed a residentially based ICAP. Participants received 5 hr of daily 1:1 evidence-based cognitive-linguistically oriented aphasia therapy, supplemented with weekly socially oriented and therapeutic group activities over a 23-day treatment course. Standardized measures of aphasia severity and communicative functioning were obtained at baseline, program entry, program exit, and follow-up. Results were analyzed using a Bayesian latent growth curve model with 2 factors representing (a) the initial level and (b) change over time, respectively, for each outcome measure. RESULTS: Model parameter estimates showed reliable improvement on all outcome measures between the initial and final assessments. Improvement during the treatment interval was greater than change observed across the baseline interval, and gains were maintained at follow-up on all measures. CONCLUSIONS: The rationale, clinical processes, and outcomes of a residentially based ICAP have been described. ICAPs differ with respect to treatments delivered, dosing parameters, and outcomes measured. Specifying the defining components of complex interventions, establishing their feasibility, and describing their outcomes are necessary to guide the development of controlled clinical trials.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to describe the rationale, clinical processes, and outcomes of an intensive comprehensive aphasia program (ICAP). METHOD: Seventy-three community-dwelling adults with aphasia completed a residentially based ICAP. Participants received 5 hr of daily 1:1 evidence-based cognitive-linguistically oriented aphasia therapy, supplemented with weekly socially oriented and therapeutic group activities over a 23-day treatment course. Standardized measures of aphasia severity and communicative functioning were obtained at baseline, program entry, program exit, and follow-up. Results were analyzed using a Bayesian latent growth curve model with 2 factors representing (a) the initial level and (b) change over time, respectively, for each outcome measure. RESULTS: Model parameter estimates showed reliable improvement on all outcome measures between the initial and final assessments. Improvement during the treatment interval was greater than change observed across the baseline interval, and gains were maintained at follow-up on all measures. CONCLUSIONS: The rationale, clinical processes, and outcomes of a residentially based ICAP have been described. ICAPs differ with respect to treatments delivered, dosing parameters, and outcomes measured. Specifying the defining components of complex interventions, establishing their feasibility, and describing their outcomes are necessary to guide the development of controlled clinical trials.
Authors: Robert Cavanaugh; Christina Kravetz; Lillian Jarold; Yina Quique; Rose Turner; William S Evans Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Christina Weyer-Jamora; Melissa S Brie; Tracy L Luks; Ellen M Smith; Steve E Braunstein; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Paige M Bracci; Susan Chang; Shawn L Hervey-Jumper; Jennie W Taylor Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2020-11-04
Authors: David Brang; Shawn L Hervey-Jumper; Alexander A Aabedi; Sofia Kakaizada; Jacob S Young; Jasleen Kaur; Olivia Wiese; Claudia Valdivia; Saritha Krishna; Christina Weyer-Jamora; Mitchel S Berger; Daniel H Weissman Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alexander P Leff; Sarah Nightingale; Beth Gooding; Jean Rutter; Nicola Craven; Makena Peart; Alice Dunstan; Amy Sherman; Andrew Paget; Morvwen Duncan; Jonathan Davidson; Naveen Kumar; Claire Farrington-Douglas; Camille Julien; Jennifer T Crinion Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 7.914