Developments in the application of Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programs: an international survey of practice.

PURPOSE: Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programs (ICAPs) were first described in 2013 with an international survey documenting 12 unique programs. ICAPs involve high dose intervention delivered in both group and individual settings, targeting communication across impairment, functioning, participation, and contextual domains. In this study, we aimed to investigate international growth in ICAPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a 43-item questionnaire expanding on the original 2013 version to investigate program modifications, activities, protocolised therapies, software and apps, and family involvement. The survey was disseminated to aphasia clinicians and researchers internationally (November 2019-February 2020). RESULTS: Thirty-nine unique respondents completed the survey from nine countries. Twenty-one met the criteria for an ICAP or modified ICAP (mICAP): 14 ICAPs; 7 mICAPs, and 13 of these were new programs. ICAPs differed from mICAPs with greater emphasis on group sessions, use of technology, total communication, advocacy, and art activities. A large range of protocolised therapies were used across programs. An increased focus on mood and psychosocial well-being was observed compared to the 2013 survey. CONCLUSIONS: The number and comprehensiveness of ICAPs has grown since 2013 with development of modified versions. Future research should focus on comparative efficacy of ICAPs/mICAPs and other forms of aphasia interventions and factors underpinning growth and sustainability.Implications for RehabilitationClinicians who coordinate or are considering commencing an ICAP in future can use these results to consider the design of their program.Coordinators should carefully consider the components of their ICAPs and advise consumers whether they meet the definition of an ICAP or a mICAP.With the increasing number of ICAPs across the globe, clinicians commencing an ICAP may wish to contact existing ICAPs within their country for advice.Program sustainability may be challenging and these results provide an indication of some of the key challenges coordinators may face.

The impact of dose on naming accuracy with persons with aphasia.

BACKGROUND: Although aphasia rehabilitation has been shown to be efficacious, many questions remain regarding how best to deliver treatment to maximize functional gains for persons with aphasia. Treatment delivery variables, such as intensity and dosage, are likely to influence both behavioral and structural changes during anomia treatment. While numerous protocols have concluded that treatment intensity positively impacts functional outcomes, few studies to date have examined the role that dose plays in patient outcomes for anomia treatment. AIMS: This study sought to investigate how manipulating dose of repeated confrontation naming within sessions influences naming in persons with aphasia. Repeated practice of confrontation naming, without feedback, was hypothesized to improve trained but not untrained words, to be persistent after withdrawal, and to be sensitive to the number of trials (i.e., dose) within sessions. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A single-subject ABA design with replication across seven participants with aphasia was used to investigate the influence of repeated confrontation naming attempts on the acquisition and maintenance of trained pictures relative to untrained pictures. Training involved repeated attempts to name pictures, along with repeated exposure to pictures of objects (nouns) and their names, without feedback. The primary independent variable was within session dose; the dependent variable was naming accuracy. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Naming accuracy improved for all participants for trained pictures across both acquisition and maintenance phases per visual inspection; such positive effects were not observed for untrained pictures. Effect size calculations indicate that three of seven participants demonstrated considerable change for trained items, while one of seven participants demonstrated meaningful change for untrained items. The high-dose condition elicited small effect sizes for one participant, and large effect sizes for two of seven participants, while the low-dose condition elicited small and medium effect sizes for two of seven participants. CONCLUSIONS: Participants across a variety of aphasia severity levels responded positively to two doses of repeated confrontation naming practice, without feedback, across phases of this naming protocol. Results are in line with principles of neuroplasticity and demonstrate that repeated practice, without feedback, can produce significant and persistent changes in naming ability for some persons with aphasia.