Exploring dimensions of quality-of-life in survivors of stroke with communication disabilities - a brief report

Establishing Quality Indicators and Implementation Priorities for Post-Stroke Aphasia Services Through End-User Involvement

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no agreed quality standards for post-stroke aphasia services. Therefore, it is unknown if care reflects best practices or meets the expectations of people living with aphasia. We aimed to (1) shortlist, (2) operationalise and (3) prioritise best practice recommendations for post-stroke aphasia care.

METHODS

Three phases of research were conducted. In Phase 1, recommendations with strong evidence and/or known to be important to people with lived experience of aphasia were identified. People with lived experience and health professionals rated the importance of each recommendation through a two-round e-Delphi exercise. Recommendations were then ranked for importance and feasibility and analysed using a graph theory-based voting system. In Phase 2, shortlisted recommendations from Phase 1 were converted into quality indicators for appraisal and voting in consensus meetings. In Phase 3, priorities for implementation were established by people with lived experience and health professionals following discussion and anonymous voting.

FINDINGS

In Phase 1, 23 best practice recommendations were identified and rated by people with lived experience (n = 26) and health professionals (n = 81). Ten recommendations were shortlisted. In Phase 2, people with lived experience (n = 4) and health professionals (n = 17) reached a consensus on 11 quality indicators, relating to assessment (n = 2), information provision (n = 3), communication partner training (n = 3), goal setting (n = 1), person and family-centred care (n = 1) and provision of treatment (n = 1). In Phase 3, people with lived experience (n = 5) and health professionals (n = 7) identified three implementation priorities: assessment of aphasia, provision of aphasia-friendly information and provision of therapy.

INTERPRETATION

Our 11 quality indicators and 3 implementation priorities are the first step to enabling systematic, efficient and person-centred measurement and quality improvement in post-stroke aphasia services. Quality indicators will be embedded in routine data collection systems, and strategies will be developed to address implementation priorities.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Protocol development was informed by our previous research, which explored the perspectives of 23 people living with aphasia about best practice aphasia services. Individuals with lived experience of aphasia participated as expert panel members in our three consensus meetings. We received support from consumer advisory networks associated with the Centre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation and Recovery and the Queensland Aphasia Research Centre.

Self-efficacy and resilience in severe aphasia - an exploratory cross-sectional study of two psychosocial factors and their relation to functional communication

PURPOSE

Self-efficacy and resilience are important for various aspects of rehabilitation outcome after stroke. However, little is known about how these factors are affected and related to communication outcome in stroke survivors with aphasia. The purpose was to investigate self-efficacy and resilience, and associations to language and functional communication, in people with severe post-stroke aphasia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

37 participants with severe aphasia rated their self-efficacy and resilience, using adapted versions of the existing instruments DLSES and CD-RISC. In addition, linguistic ability, executive function and functional communication were assessed.

RESULTS

Participants rated their self-efficacy and resilience as expected based on reports in the literature; somewhat lower than general populations and at similar levels as clinical populations. There were no association between self-efficacy, resilience and linguistic ability. In the sample as a whole, there were no associations between self-efficacy, resilience and functional communication. However, when results were stratified by executive function, associations emerged in the group with stronger executive function.

CONCLUSIONS

People with severe aphasia have decreased self-efficacy and resilience compared to general populations, but not necessarily in proportion to their language impairment. Among participants with relatively spared executive functions there were indications of an association between self-efficacy, resilience and functional communication.

Towards a core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke: What should we measure?

OBJECTIVE

To identify and agree on what outcome domains should be measured in research and clinical practice when working with stroke survivors who have dysarthria.

DESIGN

Delphi process, two rounds of an online survey followed by two online consensus meetings.

SETTING

UK and Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Stroke survivors with experience of dysarthria, speech and language therapists/pathologists working in stroke and communication researchers.

METHODS

Initial list of outcome domains generated from existing literature and with our patient and public involvement group to develop the survey. Participants completed two rounds of this survey to rate importance. Outcomes were identified as 'in', 'unclear' or 'out' from the second survey. All participants were invited to two consensus meetings to discuss these results followed by voting to identify critically important outcome domains for a future Core Outcome Set. All outcomes were voted on in the consensus meetings and included if 70% of meeting participants voted 'yes' for critically important.

RESULTS

In total, 148 surveys were fully completed, and 28 participants attended the consensus meetings. A core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke should include four outcome domains: (a) intelligibility of speech, (b) ability to participate in conversations, (c) living well with dysarthria, (d) skills and knowledge of communication partners (where relevant).

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the consensus of 'what' speech outcomes after stroke are valued by all stakeholders including those with lived experience. We share these findings to encourage the measurement of these domains in clinical practice and research and for future research to identify 'how' best to measure these outcomes.

Perceptions of Communication and Mobility Recovery Among Stroke Survivors With and Without Aphasia

Self-perceived recovery after stroke can substantially impact quality of life. Yet, a disability paradox exists whereby disability and perceived recovery do not align. This study explored stroke survivors' perceptions of their communication and mobility recovery, including perceived facilitators and barriers. Potential differences between the experiences of participants with aphasia (PWA) and participants without aphasia (PWOA) were also examined to explore the impact of communication disability on recovery experience. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 adults with stroke 3 months after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Qualitative data in the form of interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Participants described their communication recovery primarily in terms of word-finding difficulty and slowed language formulation; they described their mobility recovery in terms of their ability to walk, their use of an assistive device, or their ability to participate in pre-stroke activities. Facilitators to recovery were described in the areas of (1) family involvement, (2) rehabilitation services and professionals, (3) personal factors, and (4) the need for self-reliance. Barriers were expressed in the domains of (1) physical difficulties, (2) communication difficulties, and (3) psychological difficulties. Key findings from this study include perceived needs for a high intensity of rehabilitation, earlier implementation of communication partner training for families of stroke survivors with communication impairments, and consideration of factors outside of stroke when tailoring intervention to the individual. Overall, these findings suggest a continued need for individuation rather than standardization of care, with an eye to both impairment and broader quality of life factors.

Elizabeth Usher memorial lecture: Beyond our practice borders-using a biopsychosocial framework to improve long-term outcomes for people living with aphasia

Purpose: Over 140 000 Australians live with aphasia after stroke, with this number of people living with aphasia increasing significantly when aphasia arising from traumatic brain injury, neoplasm, and infectious and progressive neurological diseases is also included. The resulting communication disability frequently compromises every aspect of daily life, significantly impacting everyday activity, employment, social participation, mental health, identity, and family functioning. Rehabilitation services rarely meet the needs of this group who have, for example, poorer healthcare outcomes than stroke peers without aphasia, nor address long-term recovery and support needs.Method: In this discussion paper, I argue that given the broad impacts of aphasia, a biopsychosocial approach to aphasia rehabilitation is required. Rehabilitation must include: interventions to improve the communication environment; programs that directly target identity, wellbeing, and mental health; and therapies focusing on functional activity, communication participation, and long-term self-management.Result: The evidence for these approaches is mounting and includes strongly stated consumer needs. I discuss the need for multidisciplinary involvement and argue that for speech-language pathologists to achieve such comprehensive service provision, an expanded scope of practice is required.Conclusion: There is a need to rethink standard therapy approaches, timeframes, and funding mechanisms. It is time to reflect on our practice borders to ask what must change and define how change can be achieved.