A core outcome set for aphasia treatment research: The ROMA consensus statement.

Aphasia / diagnosis Consensus Emotions Humans Language Outcome Assessment, Health Care Practice Guidelines as Topic Quality of Life Stroke / diagnosis Surveys and Questionnaires
Aphasia consensus core outcome set methodology recommendations stroke

Journal

International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society
ISSN: 1747-4949
Titre abrégé: Int J Stroke
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101274068

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 12 10 2018
medline: 28 11 2019
entrez: 11 10 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

A core outcome set (COS; an agreed, minimum set of outcomes) was needed to address the heterogeneous measurement of outcomes in aphasia treatment research and to facilitate the production of transparent, meaningful, and efficient outcome data. The Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia (ROMA) consensus statement provides evidence-based recommendations for the measurement of outcomes for adults with post-stroke aphasia within phases I-IV aphasia treatment studies. This statement was informed by a four-year program of research, which comprised investigation of stakeholder-important outcomes using consensus processes, a scoping review of aphasia outcome measurement instruments, and an international consensus meeting. This paper provides an overview of this process and presents the results and recommendations arising from the international consensus meeting. Five essential outcome constructs were identified: Language, communication, patient-reported satisfaction with treatment and impact of treatment, emotional wellbeing, and quality of life. Consensus was reached for the following measurement instruments: Language: The Western Aphasia Battery Revised (WAB-R) (74% consensus); emotional wellbeing: General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 (83% consensus); quality of life: Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) (96% consensus). Consensus was unable to be reached for measures of communication (where multiple measures exist) or patient-reported satisfaction with treatment or impact of treatment (where no measures exist). Harmonization of the ROMA COS with other core outcome initiatives in stroke rehabilitation is discussed. Ongoing research and consensus processes are outlined. The WAB-R, GHQ-12, and SAQOL-39 are recommended to be routinely included within phases I-IV aphasia treatment studies. This consensus statement has been endorsed by the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists, the British Aphasiology Society, the German Society for Aphasia Research and Therapy, and the Royal College of Speech Language Therapists.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
A core outcome set (COS; an agreed, minimum set of outcomes) was needed to address the heterogeneous measurement of outcomes in aphasia treatment research and to facilitate the production of transparent, meaningful, and efficient outcome data.
OBJECTIVE
The Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia (ROMA) consensus statement provides evidence-based recommendations for the measurement of outcomes for adults with post-stroke aphasia within phases I-IV aphasia treatment studies.
METHODS
This statement was informed by a four-year program of research, which comprised investigation of stakeholder-important outcomes using consensus processes, a scoping review of aphasia outcome measurement instruments, and an international consensus meeting. This paper provides an overview of this process and presents the results and recommendations arising from the international consensus meeting.
RESULTS
Five essential outcome constructs were identified: Language, communication, patient-reported satisfaction with treatment and impact of treatment, emotional wellbeing, and quality of life. Consensus was reached for the following measurement instruments: Language: The Western Aphasia Battery Revised (WAB-R) (74% consensus); emotional wellbeing: General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 (83% consensus); quality of life: Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) (96% consensus). Consensus was unable to be reached for measures of communication (where multiple measures exist) or patient-reported satisfaction with treatment or impact of treatment (where no measures exist).
DISCUSSION
Harmonization of the ROMA COS with other core outcome initiatives in stroke rehabilitation is discussed. Ongoing research and consensus processes are outlined.
CONCLUSION
The WAB-R, GHQ-12, and SAQOL-39 are recommended to be routinely included within phases I-IV aphasia treatment studies. This consensus statement has been endorsed by the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists, the British Aphasiology Society, the German Society for Aphasia Research and Therapy, and the Royal College of Speech Language Therapists.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1177/1747493018806200 PMID: 30303810
pubmed: 30303810
doi: 10.1177/1747493018806200
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

180-185

Subventions

Organisme : NIDCD NIH HHS
ID : U01 DC014922
Pays : United States

Auteurs

Sarah J Wallace (SJ)

1 School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
ORCID: 0000-0002-0600-9343

Linda Worrall (L)

1 School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Tanya Rose (T)

1 School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Guylaine Le Dorze (G)

2 School of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.

Caterina Breitenstein (C)

3 Department of General Neurology with Institute of Translational Neurology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Katerina Hilari (K)

4 School of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.

Edna Babbitt (E)

5 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA & Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, USA.

Arpita Bose (A)

6 School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.

Marian Brady (M)

7 Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professionals Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
ORCID: 0000-0002-4589-7021

Leora R Cherney (LR)

5 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA & Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, USA.

David Copland (D)

1 School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Madeline Cruice (M)

4 School of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.

Pam Enderby (P)

8 School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Deborah Hersh (D)

9 School of Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.

Tami Howe (T)

10 School of Audiology and Speech Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
ORCID: 0000-0002-2069-2441

Helen Kelly (H)

11 School of Clinical Therapies, University College Cork, Cork, Republic of Ireland.
ORCID: 0000-0003-3694-2086

Swathi Kiran (S)

12 Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, Boston, USA.

Ann-Charlotte Laska (AC)

13 Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Division of Internal Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden.

Jane Marshall (J)

4 School of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.

Marjorie Nicholas (M)

14 School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, USA.

Janet Patterson (J)

15 California State University East Bay, Hayward, USA.

Gill Pearl (G)

16 Speakeasy, UK.

Elizabeth Rochon (E)

17 Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Miranda Rose (M)

18 School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.

Karen Sage (K)

1 School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Steven Small (S)

20 Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, USA.

Janet Webster (J)

21 School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › États, signes et symptômes pathologiques › Signes et symptômes › Manifestations neurologiques › Troubles du langage › Troubles de la parole › Aphasie › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...
questionsmedicales.fr › Phénomènes psychologiques › Processus mentaux › Pensée (activité mentale) › Prise de décision › Consensus › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...
questionsmedicales.fr › Comportement et mécanismes comportementaux › Émotions › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences de l'information › Langage › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...
questionsmedicales.fr › Qualité, accès, évaluation des soins de santé › Qualité des soins de santé › Mécanismes d'évaluation des soins de santé › Évaluation des résultats et des processus en soins de santé › Évaluation de résultat (soins) › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...
questionsmedicales.fr › Qualité, accès, évaluation des soins de santé › Assurance de la qualité des soins de santé › Recommandations comme sujet › Guides de bonnes pratiques cliniques comme sujet › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Mesures épidémiologiques › Démographie › État de santé › Qualité de vie › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...
questionsmedicales.fr › Maladies cardiovasculaires › Maladies vasculaires › Angiopathies intracrâniennes › Accident vasculaire cérébral › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Collecte de données › Enquêtes et questionnaires › A core outcome set for aphasia treatment...