Skip to content

Cost effectiveness of Aphasia Computer Treatment versus Usual Stimulation or attention control long term post stroke

Cost effectiveness of Aphasia Computer Treatment versus Usual Stimulation or attention control long term post stroke: a randomised trial

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN68798818
Enrollment
285
Registered
2014-02-18
Start date
2014-09-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2023-12-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Topic: Stroke Research Network

Interventions

Participants will be randomly allocated to either: 1. Continuing with usual activities/therapy only 2. Using the computer therapy exercises with usual care 3. Carrying out daily puzzle book activities

Sponsors

University of Sheffield (UK)
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Aged 18 or over 2. Diagnosis of stroke(s) 3. Onset of stroke at least 4 months prior to randomisation 4. Diagnosis of aphasia, subsequent to stroke, as confirmed by a trained speech and language therapist. 5. Word retrieval difficulties tested by the naming test of the Comprehensive Aphasia Test [25] (score of 10-90% 5-43/48). 6. Ability to perform a simple matching task with the StepbyStep© programme (to confirm sufficient vision and cognitive ability to participate in the intervention)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. They have another premorbid speech and language disorder caused by a neurological deficit other than stroke (a formal diagnosis can be reported by the participant or relatives and confirmed by the recruiting speech and language therapist). 2. They are unable to repeat words (suggesting presence of severe dyspraxia) 3. They require treatment for a language other than English (as the software is in English) 4. They are currently using the StepbyStep© computer programme or other computer speech therapy aimed at word retrieval/naming

Design outcomes

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Current secondary outcome measures as of 20/02/2018: 1. Improvement in patient perception of communication will be measured using the COAST - a patient reported measure of communication participation and related quality of life 2. Use of learnt vocabulary in the context of conversation will be measured using a checklist of target words during rating of the videoed conversations at 6 months Added 18/04/2018: The outcomes are measured at 6, 9 and 12 months. Previous secondary outcome measures: Improvement in patient perception of communication will be measured using the COAST - a patient-reported measure of communication participation and related quality of life

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Current primary outcome measures as of 20/02/2018: 1. The change in word finding ability of words personally relevant to the participant will be measured by a picture naming task (100 words with a maximum of 2 points each). The word finding score will be expressed as a percentage of the total score and change in the percentage 6 months from baseline will be calculated 2. Improvement in functional communication will be measured by blinded ratings of video recorded conversations between a SLT and participants, using the activity scale of the Therapy Outcome Measures Added 18/04/2018: The outcomes are measured at 6, 9 and 12 months. Previous primary outcome measures: 1. The change in the number of words (of personal relevance to the participant) named correctly at 6 months will be measured by a picture naming task 2. Improvement in functional communication will be measured by blinded ratings of video recorded conversations between a SLT and participants using the activity scale of the Therapy Outcome Measures and number of target words used in conversation, at 6 months

Countries

England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, United Kingdom, Wales

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Mar 18, 2026