A scoping review of PhotoVoice for people with post-stroke aphasia.

BACKGROUND: PhotoVoice is a qualitative research methodology designed to engage and empower marginalized members of a community and/or to understand community needs. PhotoVoice seems aphasia-friendly because it relies on personal photographs to convey opinions regarding prespecified topics. However, PhotoVoice is based on a procedure referred to as the SHOWeD method. Participants are asked to reflect upon their photos by discussing (1) what they See, (2) what is Happening, (3) the relation to Our life, (3) Why the issue or condition exists, and then to (4) explain what can be Done to address the issue(s) at hand. Due to the linguistic demand required to convey complex thoughts and ideas inherent in this methodology, adaptations are likely required to successfully implement with people who have aphasia. AIMS: A scoping review was conducted to summarize the current literature regarding the use of PhotoVoice with people who have aphasia, to address two questions:(1) Are people with post-stroke aphasia included in PhotoVoice studies?(2) What, if any, modifications are required to address post-stroke aphasia and motor impairments? MAIN CONTRIBUTION: This scoping review revealed that researchers often exclude people with aphasia from post-stroke PhotoVoice research. Three studies outlined adaptations that allowed successful implementation with people who have post-stroke aphasia. CONCLUSIONS: Further inquiry regarding how best to adapt PhotoVoice for people with aphasia will facilitate their ability to be included in community-based research. This is an important step in ensuring that all post-stroke stakeholders are involved in projects related to social justice and policy for stroke survivors.

An International Survey of Assessment Practices for Short-Term and Working Memory Deficits in Aphasia.

Purpose: Recent research has highlighted the clinical relevance of understanding the nature of short-term memory (STM) and working memory (WM) deficits in persons with aphasia and the way these deficits affect linguistic processing and functional communication in activities of daily living. The psychometric properties of tests commonly used to identify STM/WM problems in individuals with aphasia, however, have been questioned. No previous study has sought to investigate assessment practices and attitudes by speech-language pathologists involved in aphasia management. Accordingly, the aims of this study were (a) to investigate both attitudes toward STM/WM assessment in individuals with aphasia, as well as the types and frequency of STM/WM tests used with individuals with aphasia, and (b) to explore factors (e.g., educational background) that may influence STM/WM assessment practices. Method: Respondents recruited via professional and aphasia support organizations completed an online survey. The survey elicited information about the respondents' demographic and clinical backgrounds and STM/WM assessment clinical practices and views, including frequency and preferred use of specific STM/WM tests. Results: The majority of respondents reported regular use of STM/WM tests as part of aphasia management. Positive attitudes toward STM/WM assessments were also reported. The most popular rankings of tests were the Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test (Helm-Estabrooks, 2001), the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (Swinburn, Porter, & Howard, 2005), and the Token Test (McNeil & Prescott, 1978). Results suggested limited knowledge about measures that assess self-perceptions of functional memory abilities. Regression analyses showed that the frequency of reported STM/WM test use was similar between clinicians and dual-role researchers/clinicians, but their attitudes toward the value of STM/WM differed. U.S. and UK respondents reported similar assessment practices. Conclusions: It is reassuring that STM/WM is taken into consideration by clinicians when providing aphasia management. Two of the most popular tests, however, have poor psychometric properties, and caution should be exercised in clinical decision making. The different value placed on STM/WM testing by clinicians and researchers/clinicians has implications for continuing professional development.