Recruitment

Recruitment Status
Active, not recruiting
Estimated Enrollment
Same as current

Summary

Conditions
  • Aphasia
  • Stroke
Type
Interventional
Phase
Not Applicable
Design
Allocation: RandomizedIntervention Model: Parallel AssignmentIntervention Model Description: Both treatment arms will provide 60 hours of comprehensive aphasia therapy. In the ICAP arm, the 60 hours of treatment will be applied intensively, 4 hours per day, 5 days a week for three weeks. In the Distributed Treatment arm, the 60 hours of comprehensive treatment will be distributed over 15 weeks (i.e. two 2-hour visits per week).Masking: Single (Outcomes Assessor)Masking Description: Because of the nature of the intervention, neither the treating SLPs nor the subjects can be masked regarding the scheduling of treatment. To minimize outcome ascertainment bias, an evaluator (testing speech-language pathologist) who is not directly associated with the daily activities of the trial and, therefore, blind to the treatment arm will administer and score all the assessments. Subjects will be introduced to the treatment arm to which they have been assigned with a script that emphasizes similar expectations from the intervention, regardless of the treatment group. This will reduce subject bias resulting from such beliefs that one of the therapies is less effective.Primary Purpose: Treatment

Participation Requirements

Age
Between 18 years and 125 years
Gender
Both males and females

Description

Recent research has emphasized the need for intensive aphasia treatment in order to make the long-term neuroplastic changes associated with recovery and rehabilitation following a stroke. Furthermore, studies have indicated that intensive aphasia treatment is more efficacious than less intensive tre...

Recent research has emphasized the need for intensive aphasia treatment in order to make the long-term neuroplastic changes associated with recovery and rehabilitation following a stroke. Furthermore, studies have indicated that intensive aphasia treatment is more efficacious than less intensive treatment. Rather than being influenced by such evidence, the reality is that public and private payers are drastically reducing services to persons with aphasia (PWA). Legislation has seriously curtailed the amount of treatment a PWA may receive after hospitalization. Often patients are eligible for only a limited number of treatment sessions over a limited period of time. In some cases, they may not receive any treatment for their communication disorder following their acute hospitalization. Reduced resources (e.g. transportation difficulties, therapist shortages in rural areas) also may severely limit available services. The Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Program (ICAP) may be a creative, cost-effective and sustainable option for delivering meaningful and necessary aphasia services. Despite the growing numbers of ICAPs, there is little evidence about their efficacy, effectiveness, or cost-effectiveness. All stakeholders need this evidence. Funding agencies require evidence to make decisions about their investments in aphasia rehabilitation. People with aphasia and their families should have evidence prior to investing their money and time into such programs, and speech and language pathologists have an ethical obligation to provide evidence-based practices. Based on evidence regarding treatment intensity that has translated principles of neuroplasticity from animal models to stroke recovery, the investigators hypothesize that 60 hours of comprehensive treatment will result in significant improvements in (a) performance-based, (b) client-reported, and (c) surrogate-reported assessments of communication skills, community participation, and health-related quality of life. They also hypothesize that when 60 hours of comprehensive treatment is provided intensively over 3 weeks, the magnitude and rate of improvement as well as the extent to which improvements are maintained will be greater than when the 60 hours of comprehensive treatment is distributed over 15 weeks. Because the investigators hypothesize that the magnitude and rate of improvement will be greater with the intensive ICAP than with the distributed ICAP, they further hypothesize that the intensive ICAP will be more cost-effective than the distributed ICAP.

Tracking Information

NCT #
NCT03514186
Collaborators
Northwestern University
Investigators
Principal Investigator: Leora Cherney, PhD Shirley Ryan AbilityLab