A systematic review of Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programmes - who takes part, what is measured, what are the outcomes?

PURPOSE

This study synthesizes participant and outcome data from peer-reviewed Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programme (ICAP) studies.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Study eligibility criteria were specified in relation to population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and design considerations. Data were extracted according to six research questions. Narrative synthesis was used.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included covering 13 ICAPs (N = 485, aged 18-86 years, between 11 and 335 months post-stroke). Twenty-seven participant selection criteria were identified. Fifty-six outcome measures spanning the WHO-ICF were used, with the majority assessing the body function domain. Only eight studies employed an experimental design with data appropriate for analysis and synthesis. Risk of bias was noted across this sub-group. Participants improved in word-finding, communication, activity/participation, and communication-related quality of life, and maintained their gains; however, except for word finding, evidence of effect came from isolated studies. Factors influencing outcomes were rarely considered. Some drop-outs, missed sessions, and fatigue were noted. Some studies reported IPD alongside group analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

ICAP selection criteria need justification and should contribute to the understanding of candidacy for this treatment model. Rationalisation of ICAP treatment content and outcome measurement is required, spanning all WHO-ICF domains. Employment of the core outcome set for aphasia would enable data synthesis and facilitate comparisons between the ICAP and other therapy models.

Characteristics of goal-setting tools in adult rehabilitation: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aims to map the literature on goal-setting tools in adult rehabilitation, exploring their characteristics, target users and supporting evidence to inform practice and future research in this area.

METHODS

We completed a comprehensive search of four databases to identify relevant articles on tools for goal setting in rehabilitation. We followed Arkey and O'Malley's scoping review process to guide article selection, data extraction and data analysis.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 165 studies that reported on 55 different goal-setting tools, including tools for goal selection and goal documentation (n = 31), goal setting and intervention planning (n = 15), and for measuring the quality of the goal-setting process (n = 9). Over half of the tools were primarily designed for use in rehabilitation of physical disabilities (n = 32). Some tools fell under multiple sub-categories based on their characteristics as follows: 22 framework tools, 12 interview tools, 9 outcome measurement tools for goal achievement, 6 outcome measurement tools for goal quality and 25 documentation tools. The majority of goal-setting instruments targeted goals at the level of activity and participation (n = 51) and aimed to facilitate a client-centred or shared decision-making approach to rehabilitation planning (n = 46).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a comprehensive overview of existing goal-setting tools, highlighting their characteristics, target users and identified needs. These findings can enhance practitioners' awareness of the range of goal-setting tools available and can enable more effective utilization of these tools in clinical practice. Further research should investigate how clinicians can combine multiple tools to deliver goal setting.

Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programmes: a systematic scoping review and analysis using the TIDieR checklist for reporting interventions

PURPOSE

Aphasia is an acquired language disorder that typically occurs as a result of a stroke. People with aphasia experience communication difficulties and risk secondary impacts, for example, affecting social and work life and mental health. Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programmes (ICAPs) aims to address the multiple consequences of aphasia using intensive intervention and a wide range of therapy approaches. Although basic parameters of ICAP intervention have been defined, a fuller characterisation is needed. This systematic scoping review aimed to determine what constitutes an ICAP.

METHODS

Peer-reviewed and Grey databases were searched for articles on ICAPs using Joanna Brigg's Institute methodology. Data was extracted following the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist for reporting interventions and synthesised using a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

17 ICAPs were reported in 20 peer-reviewed literature sources (9 ICAPs supplemented by Grey literature sources). There were high degrees of variation in dose, professionals involved, and no qualitative data from participants. Of note, ICAP intervention was highly tailored to individual participants on the same ICAP, and intervention content varied between ICAPs. ICAPs appear to be rationalised as intensive impairment-based programmes with other components added for comprehensiveness. Stronger rationale and a logic model are required to justify the core components of ICAPs. The input of stakeholders into designing future ICAP interventions is recommended.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe ICAP model is in its infancy when it comes to mainstream clinical application as only the intensity component of the ICAP has clear theoretical underpinning as reported in the peer-reviewed literature.There have been clinical uptakes of the ICAP model which is likely to continue and is valid in the context of an under-researched area of aphasia therapy and on a background of a less than perfect relationship between evidence base and practice.Aspects of the ICAP model are valid for clinicians to implement, for example, intensive evidence-based aphasia therapy in combination with therapy which addresses some of the broader implications of aphasia, for example, social isolation.Clinicians can use the ICAP model to review their existing service provision and explore whether their service provides aphasia therapy that addresses the multiple aspects of aphasia (i.e., ensuring the focus is not only on impairment-based therapy).