Priorities for Closing the Evidence-Practice Gaps in Poststroke Aphasia Rehabilitation

A Scoping Review

Kirstine Shrubsole, Linda Worrall, Emma Power, Denise A. O'Connor

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To identify implementation priorities for poststroke aphasia management relevant to the Australian health care context. Data Sources: Using systematized searches of databases (CINAHL and MEDLINE), guideline and stroke websites, and other sources, evidence was identified and extracted for 7 implementation criteria for 13 topic areas relevant to aphasia management. These 7 priority-setting criteria were identified in the implementation literature: strength of the evidence, current evidence-practice gap, clinician preference, patient preference, modifiability, measurability, and health effect. Study Selection: Articles were included if they were in English, related to a specific recommendation requiring implementation, and contained information pertaining to any of the 7 prioritization criteria. Data Extraction: The scoping review methodology was chosen to address the broad nature of the topic. Evidence was extracted and placed in an evidence matrix. After this, evidence was summarized and then aphasia rehabilitation topics were prioritized using an approach developed by the research team. Data Synthesis: Evidence from 100 documents was extracted and summarized. Four topic areas were identified as implementation priorities for aphasia: timing, amount, and intensity of therapy; goal setting; information, education, and aphasia-friendly information; and constraint-induced language therapy. Conclusions: Closing the evidence-practice gaps in the 4 priority areas identified may deliver the greatest gains in outcomes for Australian stroke survivors with aphasia. Our approach to developing implementation priorities may be useful for identifying priorities for implementation in other health care areas.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1413-1423
Number of pages11
JournalArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume99
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2018

Keywords

  • Aphasia
  • Rehabilitation
  • Stroke

Cite this

@article{e4ec640fcf79418d932564898823f522,
title = "Priorities for Closing the Evidence-Practice Gaps in Poststroke Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review",
abstract = "Objective: To identify implementation priorities for poststroke aphasia management relevant to the Australian health care context. Data Sources: Using systematized searches of databases (CINAHL and MEDLINE), guideline and stroke websites, and other sources, evidence was identified and extracted for 7 implementation criteria for 13 topic areas relevant to aphasia management. These 7 priority-setting criteria were identified in the implementation literature: strength of the evidence, current evidence-practice gap, clinician preference, patient preference, modifiability, measurability, and health effect. Study Selection: Articles were included if they were in English, related to a specific recommendation requiring implementation, and contained information pertaining to any of the 7 prioritization criteria. Data Extraction: The scoping review methodology was chosen to address the broad nature of the topic. Evidence was extracted and placed in an evidence matrix. After this, evidence was summarized and then aphasia rehabilitation topics were prioritized using an approach developed by the research team. Data Synthesis: Evidence from 100 documents was extracted and summarized. Four topic areas were identified as implementation priorities for aphasia: timing, amount, and intensity of therapy; goal setting; information, education, and aphasia-friendly information; and constraint-induced language therapy. Conclusions: Closing the evidence-practice gaps in the 4 priority areas identified may deliver the greatest gains in outcomes for Australian stroke survivors with aphasia. Our approach to developing implementation priorities may be useful for identifying priorities for implementation in other health care areas.",
keywords = "Aphasia, Rehabilitation, Stroke",
author = "Kirstine Shrubsole and Linda Worrall and Emma Power and O'Connor, {Denise A.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.474",
language = "English",
volume = "99",
pages = "1413--1423",
journal = "Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation",
issn = "0003-9993",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "7",

}

Priorities for Closing the Evidence-Practice Gaps in Poststroke Aphasia Rehabilitation : A Scoping Review. / Shrubsole, Kirstine; Worrall, Linda; Power, Emma; O'Connor, Denise A.

In: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 99, No. 7, 01.07.2018, p. 1413-1423.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Priorities for Closing the Evidence-Practice Gaps in Poststroke Aphasia Rehabilitation

T2 - A Scoping Review

AU - Shrubsole, Kirstine

AU - Worrall, Linda

AU - Power, Emma

AU - O'Connor, Denise A.

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Objective: To identify implementation priorities for poststroke aphasia management relevant to the Australian health care context. Data Sources: Using systematized searches of databases (CINAHL and MEDLINE), guideline and stroke websites, and other sources, evidence was identified and extracted for 7 implementation criteria for 13 topic areas relevant to aphasia management. These 7 priority-setting criteria were identified in the implementation literature: strength of the evidence, current evidence-practice gap, clinician preference, patient preference, modifiability, measurability, and health effect. Study Selection: Articles were included if they were in English, related to a specific recommendation requiring implementation, and contained information pertaining to any of the 7 prioritization criteria. Data Extraction: The scoping review methodology was chosen to address the broad nature of the topic. Evidence was extracted and placed in an evidence matrix. After this, evidence was summarized and then aphasia rehabilitation topics were prioritized using an approach developed by the research team. Data Synthesis: Evidence from 100 documents was extracted and summarized. Four topic areas were identified as implementation priorities for aphasia: timing, amount, and intensity of therapy; goal setting; information, education, and aphasia-friendly information; and constraint-induced language therapy. Conclusions: Closing the evidence-practice gaps in the 4 priority areas identified may deliver the greatest gains in outcomes for Australian stroke survivors with aphasia. Our approach to developing implementation priorities may be useful for identifying priorities for implementation in other health care areas.

AB - Objective: To identify implementation priorities for poststroke aphasia management relevant to the Australian health care context. Data Sources: Using systematized searches of databases (CINAHL and MEDLINE), guideline and stroke websites, and other sources, evidence was identified and extracted for 7 implementation criteria for 13 topic areas relevant to aphasia management. These 7 priority-setting criteria were identified in the implementation literature: strength of the evidence, current evidence-practice gap, clinician preference, patient preference, modifiability, measurability, and health effect. Study Selection: Articles were included if they were in English, related to a specific recommendation requiring implementation, and contained information pertaining to any of the 7 prioritization criteria. Data Extraction: The scoping review methodology was chosen to address the broad nature of the topic. Evidence was extracted and placed in an evidence matrix. After this, evidence was summarized and then aphasia rehabilitation topics were prioritized using an approach developed by the research team. Data Synthesis: Evidence from 100 documents was extracted and summarized. Four topic areas were identified as implementation priorities for aphasia: timing, amount, and intensity of therapy; goal setting; information, education, and aphasia-friendly information; and constraint-induced language therapy. Conclusions: Closing the evidence-practice gaps in the 4 priority areas identified may deliver the greatest gains in outcomes for Australian stroke survivors with aphasia. Our approach to developing implementation priorities may be useful for identifying priorities for implementation in other health care areas.

KW - Aphasia

KW - Rehabilitation

KW - Stroke

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034424974&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.474

DO - 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.474

M3 - Review Article

VL - 99

SP - 1413

EP - 1423

JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

SN - 0003-9993

IS - 7

ER -