The Acceptability of Relationship-Centered Communication Partner Training for Couples Impacted by Aphasia: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Investigation.

PURPOSE: This study explored the acceptability and impact of relationship-centered communication partner training (RC-CPT) in couples impacted by aphasia. In particular, couples considered whether discussing their relationship roles and responsibilities was important and relevant to the changes they desire. Preliminary quasi-experimental data regarding perceived communication confidence and the marriage relationship were also obtained. METHOD: Three couples participated in RC-CPT across two sessions. Surveys were used to measure communication confidence and the marital relationship before and after participation in RC-CPT. The quantitative findings were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Couples also participated in a semistructured interview about the acceptability of RC-CPT during a third session. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using reflexive codebook analysis. RESULTS: Quantitative data indicated that participants generally maintained or improved self-rated accessibility, responsiveness, engagement, conflict resolution, and communication within their marriage after participating in RC-CPT. Additionally, individuals with aphasia demonstrated enhanced communication confidence scores. Qualitative analysis revealed three themes: (a) Impact on Communication, (b) Impact on Relationship, and (c) Impact on Psychosocial Well-Being. Feedback from participants regarding future development was also included. CONCLUSIONS: The convergence of quantitative and qualitative data supports the conclusion that couples experienced positive changes in their communication, relationship, and psychosocial well-being during the intervention, suggesting that RC-CPT has the potential to positively impact both communicative and psychosocial effects of aphasia on couples. Moreover, this study highlights the promise of RC-CPT as a relationship-centered counseling tool, warranting further exploratory and experimental research. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25937383.

Concussion and the autonomic nervous system: An introduction to the field and the results of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that autonomic nervous dysfunction may be one of many potential factors contributing to persisting post-concussion symptoms. OBJECTIVE: This is the first systematic review to explore the impact of concussion on multiple aspects of autonomic nervous system functioning. METHODS: The methods employed are in compliance with the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and PRISMA standards. Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Science Citation Index literature searches were performed using relevant indexing terms for articles published prior to the end of December 2016. Data extraction was performed by two independent groups, including study quality indicators to determine potential risk for bias according to the 4-tiered classification scheme of the AAN. RESULTS: Thirty-six articles qualified for inclusion in the analysis. Only three studies (one Class II and two Class IV) did not identify anomalies in measures of ANS functioning in concussed populations. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports the conclusion that it is likely that concussion causes autonomic nervous system anomalies. An awareness of this relationship increases our understanding of the physical impact of concussion, partially explains the overlap of concussion symptoms with other medical conditions, presents opportunities for further research, and has the potential to powerfully inform treatment decisions.

Reaffirmed limitations of meta-analytic methods in the study of mild traumatic brain injury: a response to Rohling et al.

In 2009 Pertab, James, and Bigler published a critique of two prior meta-analyses by Binder, Rohling, and Larrabee (1997) and Frencham, Fox, and Maybery (2005) that showed small effect size difference at least 3 months post-injury in individuals who had sustained a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). The Binder et al. and Frencham et al. meta-analyses have been widely cited as showing no lasting effect of mTBI. In their critique Pertab et al. (2009) point out many limitations of these two prior meta-analyses, demonstrating that depending on how inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined different meta-analytic findings occur, some supporting the persistence of neuropsychological impairments beyond 3 months. Rohling et al. (2011) have now critiqued Pertab et al. (2009). Herein we respond to the Rolling et al. (2011) critique reaffirming the original findings of Pertab et al. (2009), providing additional details concerning the flaws in prior meta-analytic mTBI studies and the effects on neuropsychological performance.

Limitations of mild traumatic brain injury meta-analyses.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) meta-analyses are sometimes cited as evidence that by 3 months post-injury the clinical effects are insignificant. In contrast to these conclusions are findings that long-term mTBI outcome can vary depending on (1) the mechanism of the injury, (2) which diagnostic criteria are employed, (3) which assessment tools utilized and (4) whether symptomatic groups are considered separately. RESEARCH DESIGN: The present study was designed to clarify opposing conclusions in the mTBI literature by re-analysing meta-analytic datasets. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The most frequently cited mTBI meta-analysis is by Binder, Rohling and Larrabee in 1997; this study was updated in 2005 by Frencham, Fox and Maybery. Data combined in these studies were re-categorized according to the four variables above; associated effect sizes and heterogeneity statistics were calculated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Considerable qualitative and statistical heterogeneity was identified within the meta-analytic data under consideration. Clinically significant lasting effects were identified for a sub-set of neuropsychological measures. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and statistical heterogeneity in studies combined in mTBI meta-analyses significantly limits the conclusions that can be drawn from small or non-significant overall effect sizes; clinically relevant information can be obscured by meta-analytic procedures. Recommendations for future meta-analytic studies of mTBI are offered.