Southampton (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Research 2022 Sep. Gaps identified by the current study may guide the development and exploration of transparent, repeatable, patient-centered treatments.īrady MC, Ali M, VandenBerg K, Williams LJ, Williams LR, Abo M, Becker F, Bowen A, Brandenburg C, Breitenstein C, Bruehl S, Copland DA, Cranfill TB, di Pietro-Bachmann M, Enderby P, Fillingham J, Galli FL, Gandolfi M, Glize B, Godecke E, Hawkins N, Hilari K, Hinckley J, Horton S, Howard D, Jaecks P, Jefferies E, Jesus LMT, Kambanaros M, Kang EK, Khedr EM, Kong APH, Kukkonen T, Laganaro M, Lambon Ralph MA, Laska AC, Leemann B, Leff AP, Lima RR, Lorenz A, MacWhinney B, Shisler Marshall R, Mattioli F, Maviş İ, Meinzer M, Nilipour R, Noé E, Paik NJ, Palmer R, Papathanasiou I, Patrício BF, Martins IP, Price C, Jakovac TP, Rochon E, Rose ML, Rosso C, Rubi-Fessen I, Ruiter MB, Snell C, Stahl B, Szaflarski JP, Thomas SA, van de Sandt-Koenderman M, van der Meulen I, Visch-Brink E, Worrall L, Wright HH. However, the variability in treatment tasks and delivery and outcome measurements preclude confidently offering specific clinical recommendations for implementing auditory comprehension treatments. Improvement and generalization were regularly reported however, authors frequently did not report statistical significance.Ī variety of treatments have addressed auditory comprehension deficits in people with aphasia, with many reporting improvements in auditory comprehension for some people. Impairment-based outcome measures were typically used. ![]() ![]() Sessions ranged from 8 to 240 min, once or more per week, for eight to 60 total sessions over 2-20 weeks. Aphasia severity and auditory comprehension severity were infrequently reported, and most participants were greater than 1-year poststroke. Thirteen studies included two to 10 participants. Fifteen studies had a control condition and/or a control group. Study designs were group ( n = 12), single-subject experimental design ( n = 11), or case study ( n = 5). Studies were categorized by treatment focus: direct auditory ( n = 7), mixed auditory ( n = 13), or indirect ( n = 8). For each article, two authors independently extracted data on study design parameters, participant characteristics, treatment protocol, and treatment outcomes, including generalization. Searches returned 170 records, and after applying exclusionary criteria, 28 articles remained. ![]() We searched eight databases using keywords aphasia, auditory comprehension, treatment, intervention, and rehabilitation, for studies published between 19. This scoping review examined studies reporting restorative treatments designed to improve auditory comprehension in people with aphasia.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |