Comparing higher and lower weekly treatment intensity for chronic aphasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
journal contributionposted on 18.01.2021, 00:04 by John PierceJohn Pierce, Robyn O'HalloranRobyn O'Halloran, Maya Menahemi FalkovMaya Menahemi Falkov, L Togher, Miranda RoseMiranda Rose
© 2020, © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. 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.
The work was supported in part by a La Trobe University Postgraduate Research Scholarship and the NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation [grant number #1153236].
PublisherTaylor & Francis
Rights StatementThe Author reserves all moral rights over the deposited text and must be credited if any re-use occurs. Documents deposited in OPAL are the Open Access versions of outputs published elsewhere. Changes resulting from the publishing process may therefore not be reflected in this document. The final published version may be obtained via the publisher’s DOI. Please note that additional copyright and access restrictions may apply to the published version.
Science & TechnologySocial SciencesLife Sciences & BiomedicineNeurosciencesPsychologyNeurosciences & NeurologyAphasiaSystematic reviewIntensityTherapyChronicOPTIMAL INTERVENTION INTENSITYINDUCED LANGUAGE THERAPYSTROKESERVICESOUTCOMESREHABILITATIONCOMMUNICATIONNEUROSCIENCECHALLENGESOPINIONSRehabilitation