Functional decline in the aphasic variant of Alzheimer's disease

Behavioral Treatment for Speech and Language in Primary Progressive Aphasia and Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech: A Systematic Review

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) are neurodegenerative syndromes characterized by progressive decline in language or speech. There is a growing number of studies investigating speech-language interventions for PPA/PPAOS. An updated systematic evaluation of the treatment evidence is warranted to inform best clinical practice and guide future treatment research. We systematically reviewed the evidence for behavioral treatment for speech and language in this population. Reviewed articles were published in peer-reviewed journals through 31 May 2021. We evaluated level of evidence, reporting quality, and risk of bias using a modified version of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) Levels of Evidence, an appraisal point system, additional reporting quality and internal/external validity items, and, as appropriate, the Single Case Experimental Design Scale or the Physiotherapy Evidence Database - PsycBITE Rating Scale for Randomized and Non-Randomized Controlled Trials. Results were synthesized using quantitative summaries and narrative review. A total of 103 studies reported treatment outcomes for 626 individuals with PPA; no studies used the diagnostic label PPAOS. Most studies evaluated interventions for word retrieval. The highest-quality evidence was provided by 45 experimental and quasi-experimental studies (16 controlled group studies, 29 single-subject designs). All (k = 45/45) reported improvement on a primary outcome measure; most reported generalization (k = 34/43), maintenance (k = 34/39), or social validity (k = 17/19) of treatment for at least one participant. The available evidence supports speech-language intervention for persons with PPA; however, treatment for PPAOS awaits systematic investigation. Implications and limitations of the evidence and the review are discussed.

Identifying care problem clusters and core care problems of older adults with dementia for caregivers: a network analysis

Background

A shift in research interest from separate care problem to care problem clusters among caregivers of people living with dementia may contribute to a better understanding of dementia care. However, the care problems network among caregivers of people living with dementia are still unknown. This study aimed to identify care problem clusters and core care problems, and explore demographic variables associated with these care problem clusters among caregivers of people living with dementia.

Methods

Participants were recruited through memory clinics and WeChat groups. The principal component analysis was applied to identify care problem clusters. The network analysis was conducted to describe the relationships among care problems and clusters. Multiple linear models were used to explore the associated factors for the occurrence of the overall care problems and top three central care problem clusters.

Results

A total of 1,012 carer-patient pairs were included in the analysis. Nine care problem clusters were identified. In the entire care problem network, "deterioration in activities of daily living" was the most core care problem cluster across the three centrality indices, followed by "verbal and nonverbal aggression" and "loss of activities of daily living." Variables including marital status, years of dementia diagnosis, number of dementia medication type, and caregiver's educational attainment were associated with the prevalence of these three care problem clusters.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that there is a need to evaluate care problem clusters for the improvement of care problem management among people living with dementia. It is particularly important to include assessment and treatment of core care problem as an essential component of the dementia care.

Use and Perceived Effectiveness of Communication Modes Reported by Persons With Primary Progressive Aphasia

PURPOSE

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a clinical neurodegenerative dementia syndrome characterized by early, selective, and progressive language impairment. PPA onset is gradual, providing time to potentially identify additional or alternative expressive communication modes; however, reports of communication mode use and effectiveness by persons with PPA have not been described. This study characterized the use, frequency, and perceived effectiveness of communication modes reported by individuals with PPA.

METHOD

Forty-one participants with mild-to-moderate PPA completed a structured interview detailing the type, frequency, and perceived effectiveness of 12 potential communication modes, categorized by technology required (no-tech, low-tech, and high-tech). The ratio of modes used was compared across technology categories with a repeated-measures generalized linear model assuming a binomial distribution with an overall Wald chi-square statistic, followed by pairwise post hoc t-test comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 12 communication modes assessed, participants reported using a median of eight (range: 5-10). All participants affirmed using speech, facial expressions, and talking on the phone. Frequency and perceived effectiveness ratings for these three modes were endorsed at the "some/most of the time" level for more than 80% of the participants. No-tech mode use was significantly higher than reported high-tech and low-tech modes (p = .004 and p < .0001, respectively). Even so, while some high-tech modes (apps) and some low-tech modes (nonelectronic augmentative and alternative communication) had fewer users, effectiveness ratings were moderate to high for all but one user.

CONCLUSIONS

Persons with mild-to-moderate language impairment due to PPA report using a range of communication modes with moderate-to-high frequency and perceived effectiveness. These outcomes provide practical information when considering mode refinement or expansion during intervention to maximize communication participation. Barriers to modality use may include low awareness or access, which could be queried by future studies and supported by speech and language interventions.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21614262.