Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a language-led dementia associated with Alzheimer’s pathology and fronto-temporal lobar degeneration. Multiple tailored speech and language interventions have b...

Background: Developing effective interventions for people with aphasia, which both ameliorate impaired language and directly impact on real-life communication, is a key focus of aphasia research. While single-word and sentence-level models of language processing have informed effective interventions, there is limited evidence of intervention approaches that extend the principles from these models to discourse. Aims: This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare a novel multilevel intervention, a Novel Approach to Real-life communication: Narrative Intervention in Aphasia (NARNIA), with usual care (UC), with a view to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the approach and estimate effect sizes to design and power a definitive trial. Methods & Procedures: In a prospective, single-blind, RCT, 14 people with mild to moderate aphasia, between 2 and 165 months following stroke, were randomised to the two interventions. Both therapy conditions were delivered four times weekly over 5 weeks. The NARNIA intervention specifically combined word retrieval, sentence production, and discourse macrostructure across a range of everyday discourse (ED) genres. UC comprised any speech-language therapy routinely used in clinical practice, individually tailored to meet the assessed needs of the participant. The Curtin University Discourse Protocol (CUDP) was used to measure verb access, sentence production, and discourse structure. Outcomes & Results: Eight participants were assigned to the NARNIA intervention and six participants to UC. No significant differences were present in baseline prognostic factors between the two groups prior to intervention. Following intervention, orientation aspects of macrostructure were significantly greater in the NARNIA group on ED measures than in the UC group, with no other between-group differences found. Significant changes were, however, seen within groups across ED genres. The NARNIA group made significant gains across all language levels, while the UC made isolated gains in sentence production. Few changes were seen in narrative discourse for either group. While single-word processing was not significantly different between groups, significant within-group differences were seen. While both groups significantly improved in retrieving nouns in isolation, only the NARNIA group made significant improvement in verb processing. No change was seen in constrained sentence production for either group. Conclusions: These findings are highly promising in demonstrating the use of macrostructure to scaffold production of words and sentences and improve discourse organisation. The significantly greater within-group gains for the NARNIA participants will provide a platform to power a larger trial to evaluate the effectiveness of this integrated multilevel intervention for aphasia.

Purpose: Within the current literature, positive intervention effects demonstrate the significant potential for people with Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) to learn/relearn words. Generalisation of intervention effects to other words and/or other contexts, however, remains unclear. Method: This multiple baseline, case-series design investigated the effects of a self-cueing lexical retrieval intervention across word classes (nouns, verbs and adjectives) on four individuals with PPA, three suggestive of the semantic variant and one of the logopenic variant. The intervention integrated semantic, phonological and orthographic levels of language production and drew on autobiographical memory. Changes in accuracy in retrieving treated and untreated items (pre-intervention, post-intervention and 4-weeks maintenance) were determined using the Cochran’s Q test, with follow-up McNemar pairwise comparisons. Result: All participants showed significant improvements in naming treated items, across all word classes. Different patterns of generalised improvement to untreated words were found for each participant. In discourse, the semantic variant participants demonstrated a significant increase in correct information units, in contrast to the participant with the logopenic variant who remained stable. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that people with PPA can show improved lexical retrieval following intervention. The findings suggest possible differences in generalisation across word classes and according to underlying deficit.

Purpose: A variety of dysphagia management options are available for the treatment of dysphagia following a stroke, however, it is unknown which of these approaches are most commonly utilised by Australian speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and whether particular factors influence decision-making. Method: The aim of this study was to investigate, through an online survey, the treatment practices of SLPs in Australia for the treatment of dysphagia post-stroke and identify the factors influencing treatment decisions. Result: A total of 118 SLPs completed the online survey. Descriptive statistics identified large variability in the dysphagia treatments utilised, with all 24 therapies listed in the online survey reported as being routinely used. Compensatory therapies were ranked as being utilised more frequently than rehabilitative approaches, with six of the seven highly utilised therapies being compensatory in nature. A client’s cognitive capacity was the most prominent factor influencing SLPs’ treatment decisions. Conclusion: This study provides insight into the practices of SLPs in Australia for the treatment of dysphagia following stroke and discusses potential for shifts in practice. It highlights the complexity involved in the decision-making process and that clinicians consider evidence, as well as client, clinician and service factors, when selecting between the range of options available.