| 1 |
Addressing racial/ethnic inequities in vaccine hesitancy and uptake: lessons learned from the California alliance against COVID-19.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
Identifying preschool measures most predictive of language outcomes at 11 years in the Early Language in Victoria Study ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
Semantic dimensions of depressions: a Demonstrative Choice Task ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 4 |
An umbrella review of aphasia intervention description in research: The AsPIRE project
|
|
Dipper, L. T.; Franklin, S.; de Aguiar, V.; Baumgaertner, A.; Brady, M.; Best, W.; Bruehl, S.; Denes, G.; Godecke, E.; Gil, M.; Kirmess, C.; Markey, M.; Meinzer, C.; Mendez Orellana, M.; Norvik, M.; Nouwens, F.; Rose, M. L.; van de Sandt, M.; Whitworth, A.; Visch-Brink, E. G.
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2022)
|
|
Abstract:
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Background: Recent reviews conclude that aphasia intervention is effective. However, replication and implementation require detailed reporting of intervention is and a specification of participant profiles. To date, reviews concentrate more on efficacy than on intervention reporting quality. Aims: The aim of this project is to review the descriptions of aphasia interventions and participants appearing in recent systematic reviews of aphasia intervention effectiveness. The relationship between the quality of these descriptions and the robustness of research design is explored, and the replicability of aphasia interventions is evaluated. Methods and Procedures: The scope of our search was an analysis of the aphasia intervention studies included in the and EBRSR 2018 systematic reviews, and in the RCSLT 2014 literature synthesis. Intervention descriptions published separately from the intervention study (i.e. published online, in clinical tools, or a separate trial protocols) were not included. The criteria for inclusion were that participants had aphasia, the intervention involved language and/or communication, and included the following research designs: Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), comparison or control, crossover design, case series. Exclusion criteria included non-SLT interventions, studies involving fewer than four participants, conference abstracts, studies not available in English. Studies were evaluated for completeness of intervention description using the TIDieR Checklist. Additionally, we rated the quality of patient and intervention description, with particular reference to replicability. Outcomes and Results: Ninety-three studies were included. Only 14 studies (15%) had > 50 participants. Fifty-six studies (60%) did not select participants with a specific aphasia profile, and a further 10 studies only described participants as non-fluent. Across the studies, an average of eight (of 12) TIDieR checklist items were given but information on where, tailoring, modification and fidelity items was rarely available. Studies that evaluated general aphasia intervention approaches tended to use RCT designs, whereas more specific intervention studies were more likely to use case series designs. Conclusions: Group studies were generally under-powered and there was a paucity of research looking at specific aphasia interventions for specific aphasia profiles. There was a trade-off between the robustness of the design and the level of specificity of the intervention described. While the TIDieR framework is a useful guide to information which should be included in an intervention study, it is insufficiently sensitive for assessing replicability. We consider possible solutions to the challenges of making large-scale trials more useful for determining effective aphasia intervention.
|
|
Keyword:
Aphasia; Communication Sciences and Disorders; intervention; Medicine and Health Sciences; therapy; treatment
|
|
URL: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/9689
https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2020.1852001
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 5 |
New perspectives, theory, method, and practice: Qualitative research and innovation in speech-language pathology
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2022 to 2026 (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
An aphasia research agenda – a consensus statement from the collaboration of aphasia trialists
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
The 'real-life' benefit of hearing preservation cochlear implantation in the paediatric population ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
Understanding the implementation of telepractice in speech and language services for children and adults using a mixed-methods approach ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 9 |
Health TrueInfo: A multilingual Android app and social media approach in tackling COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy in Bolivia, India, and Canada
|
|
|
|
In: University of Toronto Journal of Public Health; Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022): Special Issue of Abstracts from Conferences ; 2563-1454 (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 10 |
The Medicalisation of Gender Nonconformity through Language: a Keywords Analysis
|
|
|
|
In: sprinkle: an undergraduate journal of feminist and queer studies (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 12 |
Bilingual advantages in executive functioning: Evidence from a low-income sample
|
|
|
|
In: FIRST LANGUAGE, vol 41, iss 6 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 13 |
The educational needs of school-aged students with Developmental Language Disorder: The perspectives of key stakeholders ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 14 |
“Do environmental contaminant substances have potential negative effect on children´s speech, language, and communication? A systematic review” ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 15 |
Trade-offs between informativeness and processing load in autistic preschoolers: Experiment 1 ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 17 |
Focused interests and word learning in autistic preschoolers ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 18 |
International Bilingual Journal of Culture, Anthropology and Linguistics ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 19 |
Trade-offs between informativeness and processing load in autistic preschoolers: Experiment 2 ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 20 |
The effect of competing noise on speech recognition for children who are non-native listeners: a scoping review protocol ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
