Aphasia
Conditions
Keywords
social support
Brief summary
The project will investigate the feasibility and acceptability of a remote support group intervention for people with aphasia, and will investigate the impact of that intervention on measures of wellbeing, quality of life and communication. The intervention will be delivered to 32 participants in Eva Park, a virtual island specifically designed for people with aphasia.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALSocial support groups delivered in EVA Park
Intervention will comprise support group meetings delivered in EVA Park, a virtual island created for people with aphasia. Scheduled meetings will be held every two weeks, led by the group co-ordinator and volunteers. Participants will have unlimited access to EVA Park, so will be able to meet up with other group members between meetings.
Sponsors
The Stroke Association, United Kingdom
City, University of London
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Stroke survivor with aphasia; Score within the aphasic range on the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test (FAST); Fluent pre-stroke user of English.
Exclusion criteria
* Co-morbidity affecting cognition; Severe hearing or visual impairments
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pre to post intervention change on the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) | At randomisation and at 7 and 14 months post randomisation | A 14 item questionnaire about feelings of wellbeing |
| Pre to post intervention change on the Communication Activities of Daily Living test (CADL-2) | At randomisation and at 7 and 14 months post randomisation | A 50 item standardized test of everyday communication activities, designed for people with aphasia |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pre to post intervention change on the Social Connectedness Scale - Revised (Lee et al. 2001) | At randomisation and at 7 and 14 months post randomisation | A 20 item questionnaire about feelings of social connectedness |
| Pre to post intervention change on The Western Aphasia Battery - Revised (Kertesz, 2007) | At randomisation and at 7 and 14 months post randomisation | A standardized assessment of language impairment designed for people with aphasia |
| Pre to post intervention change on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life measure (SAQOL-39) (Hilari et al, 2003) | At randomisation and at 7 and 14 months post randomisation | A self reporting questionnaire about health related quality of life designed for people with stroke and aphasia |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Participant recruitment and attrition rates | Throughout recruitment, intervention and follow up period, up to 14 months | The number of participants referred to the project and the proportion who consent; the number of individuals lost to follow up |
| Treatment cost | Throughout intervention periods; Months 1 - 6 for the immediate arm; Months 8 - 13 for the waitlist control arm. | Logs of all costs associated with the intervention, relating to: Human Resources, Technical costs, Materials, Capital costs and Travel |
| Participant views about intervention | Interviews conducted up to 4 weeks post intervention (Month 7 for immediate arm; month 14 for waitlist control arm) | Responses to in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted with all participants post intervention |
| Group coordinators' and volunteers' views about intervention | At month 7 for the immediate arm; at month 14 for the waitlist control arm | Responses to in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted with all coordinators and 8 purposefully selected volunteers |
| Qualitative findings from Human Computer Interaction Assessments | Conducted in the first and last week of intervention; Months 1 and 6 for the immediate arm; Months 8 and 13 for the waitlist control arm. | Structured observations and interviews conducted with 8 randomly selected participants from each arm, aiming to determine the suitability of EVA Park for delivering support group meetings |
| Time spent using EVA Park | throughout intervention periods; Months 1 - 6 for the immediate arm; Months 8 - 13 for the waitlist control arm | Automatic log data of each participant's usage of EVA Park |
Countries
United Kingdom
Outcome results
None listed