The impact of participation in research for speech and language therapy departments and their patients: A case example of the Big CACTUS multicentre trial of self-managed computerized aphasia therapy.

BACKGROUND: In order to conduct research that is meaningful to speech and language therapy services and their patients, it is often desirable to conduct the research within routine clinical services. This can require considerable time and commitment from speech and language therapists (SLTs). It is therefore important to understand the impact that such participation in research can have. AIMS: To explore the impact of research participation in the Big CACTUS study of self-managed computerized aphasia therapy conducted in 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. METHODS & PROCEDURES: An online survey was sent to SLTs who took the lead role for the study at their NHS Trust to evaluate the impact of study participation in three domains: capacity-building, research development and health services. The questionnaire, based on the VICTOR framework for evaluating research impact, included Likert scale statements and closed and open-ended questions. The results from open-ended questions were coded and analysed using framework analysis in NVivo 12 and the data from closed questions were analysed descriptively. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: A total of 12 SLTs returned the survey. Nine codes were identified from open-ended questions and 20 predefined from the literature. Analysis of the responses demonstrated the perceived impact including improvements in practices and access to therapy, investments in infrastructure, increased SLT profile, and impact on research culture among SLTs. The usefulness of the intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic was also highlighted. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The results suggest participation in Big CACTUS has resulted in improvements in patient care and SLT research capacity and culture in speech and language therapy departments. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Practice-based research is encouraged to assist with the clinical relevance of the research findings. Participation in research can be seen as an activity that is additional to the core business of patient care and it can be difficult to secure time to participate or conduct research in clinical settings. Impact evaluation initiatives of individual trials facilitate early identification of benefits beyond the trial. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study describes specific examples of the impact on services, staff and patients from SLT participation and leadership in the Big CACTUS speech and language therapy trial in clinical settings. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this study? Clinical services participating in research may benefit from improved clinical care for patients both during and after the study, an improved professional reputation, and increased research capacity and culture within the clinical settings.

[Scoping review of the effectiveness of screen-to-screen-therapy compared to face-to-face-therapy on naming performance for patients with aphasia]. / Scoping Review über die Wirksamkeit einer Screen-to-Screen-Therapie im Vergleich zu einer Face-to-Face-Therapie bei Patient*innen mit Aphasie auf die Benennleistungen.

INTRODUCTION: About 35,000 people in Germany suffered from stroke-related aphasia in 2019. One of the most frequent manifestations of aphasia are word finding disorders. In times of the COVID-19 pandemic, the temporary approval of video therapy enables the maintenance of speech therapy treatment. This leads to the necessity to investigate the effectiveness of screen-to-screen therapy via a video conferencing system compared to conventional face-to-face therapy of adult aphasia patients. METHODS: For this scoping review, a literature search in the databases Cochrane, Pubmed and Web of Science was conducted for the period February 2010 to 2020. We included German- and English-language studies comparing the effectiveness of a classic face-to-face therapy with a screen-to-screen therapy of adults with aphasia. The studies were selected using the PRISMA flowchart. RESULTS: A total of five studies were identified. Both face-to-face therapy and screen-to-screen therapy showed significant improvements in naming performance in an Italian crossover study, a Canadian randomized study and a quasi-randomized study conducted in the UK. No improvements were found for both forms of intervention in an Israeli crossover study. In a German comparative study, significant improvements in naming performance were found for face-to-face therapy, but the results did not differ significantly from the screen-to-screen therapy intervention group. DISCUSSION: In all included studies, screen-to-screen therapy and face-to-face therapy had a comparable effectiveness on naming performance. The results demonstrate the feasibility of a screen-to-screen therapy under everyday conditions. However, it is possible that this form of therapy cannot always be implemented. Barriers to screen-to-screen therapy can be the use of technologies and restrictions in the visual field due to a neglect. One limitation of the scoping review was that only the naming performance was considered as an outcome, another was the small number of studies included. CONCLUSION: For many patients screen-to-screen therapy is currently the only possibility to receive speech therapy treatment. Therefore it is a positive aspect that screen-to-screen therapy is as effective as face-to-face therapy. Screen-to-screen therapy can provide expanded access to health care and professional expertise in health services. In this way, speech therapy care during the COVID-19 pandemic can be largely maintained. Further research is needed on evidence-based treatment methods and user-oriented apps for video therapy.