Literature DB >> 32496963

Comparing higher and lower weekly treatment intensity for chronic aphasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

John E Pierce1,2,3, Robyn O'Halloran1,3, Maya Menahemi-Falkov1,3, Leanne Togher3,4, Miranda L Rose1,3.   

Abstract

Optimizing intensity for aphasia treatment is a high priority research issue for people with aphasia, their families and clinicians, and could result in healthcare cost savings. An important aspect of intensity is the frequency of intervention, or how regularly treatment should be provided each week. While principles of neuroplasticity endorse massed practice, cognitive psychology has established superiority of distributed practice within normal learning. Neither concept has been conclusively tested in aphasia. There have been many literature reviews of intensity in aphasia intervention, but most have not investigated treatment intensity whilst also ensuring that therapy dose and treatment type are identical between study groups. Some have also combined studies across acute, subacute and chronic aphasia. We searched systematically for studies directly comparing higher and lower weekly treatment frequency in chronic aphasia. Eight studies were retrieved and rated for methodological quality. Meta-analysis was completed for group and single case experimental designs. Results showed that there are few studies investigating treatment frequency in chronic aphasia and their quality is low-moderate. Meta-analyses were inconclusive due to limited data, but there was no indication of either schedule being superior. Further research directly comparing treatment schedules is needed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aphasia; Chronic; Intensity; Systematic review; Therapy

Year:  2020        PMID: 32496963     DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2020.1768127

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychol Rehabil        ISSN: 0960-2011            Impact factor:   2.868


  4 in total

Review 1.  Is There a Research-Practice Dosage Gap in Aphasia Rehabilitation?

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

2.  A randomized crossover single-case series comparing blocked versus random treatment for anomia.

Authors:  Victoria A Diedrichs; Jennifer P Lundine; Deena Schwen Blackett; Alexandra Zezinka Durfee; Xueliang Jeff Pan; Stacy M Harnish
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rehabil       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 2.928

3.  Diagnosing and managing post-stroke aphasia.

Authors:  Shannon M Sheppard; Rajani Sebastian
Journal:  Expert Rev Neurother       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 4.618

Review 4.  Adjunctive Approaches to Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Review on Efficacy and Safety.

Authors:  Chiara Picano; Agnese Quadrini; Francesca Pisano; Paola Marangolo
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-01-02
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.