A feasibility randomised waitlist-controlled trial of a personalised multi-level language treatment for people with aphasia: The remote LUNA study.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
received: 03 10 2023
accepted: 10 05 2024
medline: 14 6 2024
pubmed: 14 6 2024
entrez: 14 6 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Stroke survivors with aphasia want to improve their everyday talking (discourse). In current UK practice, 90% of speech and language therapists believe discourse assessment and treatment is part of their role but are hampered by barriers in resources, time and expertise. There is a clinical need for well-articulated discourse assessment and treatments. LUNA is a multi-level treatment targeting words, sentences and discourse macrostructure in personal stories that addresses this clinical need. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of LUNA trial procedures in a randomised waitlist-controlled trial; and to evaluate preliminary efficacy. This paper reports a phase II, waitlist-controlled, proof-of-concept feasibility trial. Participants with chronic aphasia (n = 28) were recruited from the community and randomised to an Immediate (n = 14) or Delayed (n = 14) group. LUNA treatment was delivered twice weekly for 10 weeks via the videoconferencing technology, Zoom. Feasibility was assessed in terms of participant recruitment and retention, adherence, missing data, and treatment fidelity. Preliminary treatment efficacy was assessed in terms of between group differences in outcome measures relating to discourse, language, and psychosocial state. The remote LUNA trial was feasible: 85% of those eligible consented to the trial; trial retention was 86%; 87% of treatment sessions were delivered as scheduled, and 79% of participants completed 80%+ of the treatment programme; data was missing only for participants who withdrew; treatment fidelity was high at 92% adherence; and only one clinical outcome measure demonstrated ceiling effects. ANCOVA analysis of the clinical outcome measures revealed group differences with medium and large effect sizes, indicating, improvements in the production of words, sentences, discourse macrostructure, overall language functioning (WAB-R), and psychosocial state (VAMS) following LUNA treatment. For most outcomes measured, similar treatment benefits were suggested in a secondary, non-parametric analysis. Large-scale evaluation of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LUNA is warranted and supported by these findings. Clinical trials registration: NCT05847023 (clinical trials.gov).

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Stroke survivors with aphasia want to improve their everyday talking (discourse). In current UK practice, 90% of speech and language therapists believe discourse assessment and treatment is part of their role but are hampered by barriers in resources, time and expertise. There is a clinical need for well-articulated discourse assessment and treatments. LUNA is a multi-level treatment targeting words, sentences and discourse macrostructure in personal stories that addresses this clinical need.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of LUNA trial procedures in a randomised waitlist-controlled trial; and to evaluate preliminary efficacy.
METHODS METHODS
This paper reports a phase II, waitlist-controlled, proof-of-concept feasibility trial. Participants with chronic aphasia (n = 28) were recruited from the community and randomised to an Immediate (n = 14) or Delayed (n = 14) group. LUNA treatment was delivered twice weekly for 10 weeks via the videoconferencing technology, Zoom. Feasibility was assessed in terms of participant recruitment and retention, adherence, missing data, and treatment fidelity. Preliminary treatment efficacy was assessed in terms of between group differences in outcome measures relating to discourse, language, and psychosocial state.
RESULTS RESULTS
The remote LUNA trial was feasible: 85% of those eligible consented to the trial; trial retention was 86%; 87% of treatment sessions were delivered as scheduled, and 79% of participants completed 80%+ of the treatment programme; data was missing only for participants who withdrew; treatment fidelity was high at 92% adherence; and only one clinical outcome measure demonstrated ceiling effects. ANCOVA analysis of the clinical outcome measures revealed group differences with medium and large effect sizes, indicating, improvements in the production of words, sentences, discourse macrostructure, overall language functioning (WAB-R), and psychosocial state (VAMS) following LUNA treatment. For most outcomes measured, similar treatment benefits were suggested in a secondary, non-parametric analysis.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Large-scale evaluation of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LUNA is warranted and supported by these findings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
Clinical trials registration: NCT05847023 (clinical trials.gov).

Identifiants

pubmed: 38875279
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304385
pii: PONE-D-23-30073
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05847023']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial, Phase II

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0304385

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Dipper et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Auteurs

Lucy Dipper (L)

Department of Language and Communication Science, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Niamh Devane (N)

Department of Language and Communication Science, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Rachel Barnard (R)

Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Nicola Botting (N)

Department of Language and Communication Science, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Mary Boyle (M)

Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, United States of America.

Lin Cockayne (L)

Department of Language and Communication Science, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Deborah Hersh (D)

Curtin School of Allied Health and EnAble Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.

Carla Magdalani (C)

Department of Language and Communication Science, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Jane Marshall (J)

Department of Language and Communication Science, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Kate Swinburn (K)

Department of Language and Communication Science, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Madeline Cruice (M)

Department of Language and Communication Science, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

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
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH