ANZCTR - Registration

Registering a new trial?

To achieve prospective registration, we recommend submitting your trial for registration at the same time as ethics submission.

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this information for consumers

Trial registered on ANZCTR

Registration number

ACTRN12615000664549

Ethics application status

Approved

Date submitted

15/06/2015

Date registered

26/06/2015

Date last updated

9/04/2018

Type of registration

Prospectively registered

Titles & IDs

Public title

A comparison of three community aphasia groups for people with aphasia and their family members

Scientific title

The impacts of people with aphasia and their family members attending one of three models of community aphasia groups for living well with aphasia

Secondary ID [1]

None

Universal Trial Number (UTN)

U1111-1170-7306

Trial acronym

Linked study record

Health condition

Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:

Aphasia

Low mood/psychological distress

Condition category

Condition code

Stroke

Ischaemic

Mental Health

Depression

Neurological

Other neurological disorders

Intervention/exposure

Study type

Interventional

Description of intervention(s) / exposure

Group Name: Multi-disciplinary-facilitated community aphasia group.

Focus of the program: communication partner training, total communication, conversation practice, socialisation, participation in meaningful activities, identity (re)negotiation, advocacy, psychological support, information provision, family involvement, group process, home tasks, individual goals, transition goals.

Dose: 2 hour session one day per week for 12 weeks.

Mode of administration: Face to face group program

Group facilitators: Speech Pathologist and Social Worker. Aides: person with aphasia, person without aphasia. Additional speech pathologist consultancy.

Strategies to improve adherence: Home task reminders provided at the end of each week, reminder alerts where permission has been given (e.g., via phone, email, or text), weekly staff briefings and debriefings to address any participant concerns, on-call social worker available to address any participant concerns and provide support, participants invited to provide weekly feedback regarding experience of previous session

Procedures for monitoring adherence: Weekly attendance records, weekly feedback regarding completion of home tasks

Intervention code [1]

Rehabilitation

Intervention code [2]

Lifestyle

Intervention code [3]

Behaviour

Comparator / control treatment

Comparator Group 1 Name: Speech-language-pathologist-facilitated community aphasia group

Focus of the program: total communication, conversation practice, socialisation, participation in meaningful activities, psychological support, information provision, group process, home tasks, individual goals.

Dose: 2 hour session one day per week for 12 weeks.

Mode of administration: Face to face group program

Group facilitators: Speech Pathologist. Aide: person without aphasia. Speech Pathologist and Social Worker consultancy.

Strategies to improve adherence: Home task reminders provided at the end of each week, reminder alerts where permission has been given (e.g., via phone, email, or text), weekly staff briefings and debriefings to address any participant concerns, on-call social worker available to address any participant concerns and provide support, weekly feedback regarding completion of home tasks and experience of sessions

Procedures for monitoring adherence: Weekly attendance records

Comparator Group 2 Name: Volunteer and peer co-facilitated community aphasia group

Focus of the program: total communication, conversation practice, socialisation, family involvement, transition goals.

Dose: 2 hour session one day per week for 12 weeks.

Mode of administration: Face to face group program

Group facilitators: person with aphasia, family member of person with aphasia/person without aphasia. Speech Pathologist and Social Worker consultancy.

Strategies to improve adherence: Weekly staff briefings and debriefings to address any participant concerns, on-call social worker available to address any participant concerns and provide support, staff to seek participant feedback regarding session experience

Procedures for monitoring adherence: Weekly attendance record

Control group

Active

Outcomes

Primary outcome [1]

1. Assessment for Living with Aphasia

Areas of measurement:
Participants with aphasia--Living with aphasia: individual domains (aphasic impairment, participation in life situations, environmental factors, and personal factors) and composite score (quality of life/living with aphasia)

Reference:
Kagan, A., Simmons-Mackie, N., Victor, J. C., Carling-Rowland, A., Hoch, J., Huijbregts, M., Streiner, D., & Mok., A. (2013). Assessment for Living with Aphasia (2nd ed.) Aphasia Institute: Toronto.

Timepoint [1]

4 weeks following the end of the program.

Primary outcome [2]

2. Measure of Participation in Conversation; Measure of Skill in Conversation

Area of measurement:
Participants with aphasia (Measure of Participation)--Skills of the participant with aphasia in relation to participating in conversation (ability to interact or socially connect with his/her significant other, and to respond to and/or initiate specific content)

Family member (measure of skill)--Family member’s skill level in acknowledging and revealing the person with aphasia’s competence during conversation

References:
Kagan, A., Black, S., Duchan, J., Simmons-Mackie, N., & Square, P. (2001). Training volunteers as conversation partners using “Supported Convesation for Adult with Aphasia” (SCA): A controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 44(3), 624-638.

Kagan, A., Winckel, J., Black, S., Duchan, J., Simmons-Mackie, N., & Square, P. (2004). A set of observational measures for rating support and participation in conversation between adults with aphasia and their conversation partners. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 11(1), 67-83.

Timepoint [2]

4 weeks following the end of the program.

Primary outcome [3]

Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale

Area of measurement: Family members--Life changes resulting from caregiving for a stroke survivor.

Reference:
Bakas, T., Champion, V., Perkins, S. M., Farran, C. J., & Williams, L. S. (2006). Psychometric testing of the revised 15-item Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale. Nursing Research, 55(5), 346–355.

Timepoint [3]

4 weeks following the end of the program.

Secondary outcome [1]

Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia

Area of measurement:
Participants with aphasia--Communication Confidence

References:
Babbitt, E. M., Heinemann, A. W., Semik, P., & Cherney, L. R. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA): Phase 2. Aphasiology, 25(6-7), 727–735.

Cherney, L. R., Babbitt, E. M., Semik, P., & Heinemann, A. W. (2011). Psychometric properties of the communication confidence rating scale for aphasia (CCRSA): Phase 1. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 18(4), 352–360.

Timepoint [1]

4 weeks following the end of the program

Secondary outcome [2]

Group experience interview (60 minutes)

Area of measurement:
Participants with aphasia, family members, and staff--Face-to-face individual semi-structured interview regarding the experience of group participation

Timepoint [2]

At the end of the program

Secondary outcome [3]

Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey

Area of measurement:
Participants with aphasia--Perceived social support

Reference:
Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social Science & Medicine, 32(6), 705–714.

Timepoint [3]

4 weeks following the end of the program

Secondary outcome [4]

Social Networks Communication Inventory

Area of measurement:
Participants with Aphasia--Social networks (types, size, frequency of contact, etc.)

Reference:
Blackstone, S. W. (2003). Social Networks: A communication inventory for individuals with complex communication needs and their communication partners. Monterey, Canada: Augmentative Communication, Inc.

Timepoint [4]

4 weeks following the end of the program

Secondary outcome [5]

Post-Group Experience Survey

The questionnaire has been designed specifically for this study.

Area of measurement:
Participant with aphasia and family members--feedback regarding experience of group participation (Likert-scale questionnaire)

Timepoint [5]

At the end of the program

Secondary outcome [6]

Post-Group Knowledge Survey

The questionnaire has been designed specifically for this study.

Area of measurement:
Participant with aphasia and family members--self-ratings of the degree of knowledge gained through group attendance (based on topics addressed) (Likert-scale questionnaire)

Timepoint [6]

At the end of the program

Secondary outcome [7]

Western Aphasia Battery--Revised

Area of measurement:
Participants with aphasia--Aphasic impairment (type, severity)

Reference:
Kertesz, A. (2007). Western Aphasia Battery-Revised. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.

Timepoint [7]

4 weeks following the end of the program

Secondary outcome [8]

Communication Effectiveness Index

Area of Measurement:
Participants with aphasia--Communication performance re. person with aphasia in relation to various daily activities (e.g., expressing that he/she has understood)

Reference:
Lomas, J., Pickard, L., Bester, S., Elbard, H., Finlayson, A., & Zoghaib, C. (1989). The Communicative Effectiveness Index. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54(1), 113–124.

Timepoint [8]

4 weeks following the end of the program

Secondary outcome [9]

General Health Questionnaire-28 item version

Area of measurement: Family members--psychological distress/health

Reference:
Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F. (1979). A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, (9), 139–145.

Timepoint [9]

4 weeks after the end of the program

Secondary outcome [10]

Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire

Area of measurement: Participants with aphasia--depressed mood

Reference:
Sutcliffe, L. M., & Lincoln, N. B. (1998). The assessment of depression in aphasic stroke patients: The development of the Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire. Clinical Rehabilitation, 12(6), 506–513.

Timepoint [10]

4 weeks following the end of the program

Secondary outcome [11]

Therapeutic Factors Inventory-19

Area of measurement: Experience of group process (perceived presence of ‘therapeutic factors’ within the group setting).

Reference:
Joyce, A. S., MacNair-Semands, R., Tasca, G. A., & Ogrodniczuk, J. S. (2011). Factor structure and validity of the Therapeutic Factors Inventory–Short Form. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(3), 201–219.

Timepoint [11]

Weeks 3, 6, 9, and 12 of the program.

Eligibility

Key inclusion criteria

Person with aphasia must have a primary communication partner (spouse or close other who either lives with the PWA or sees them at least weekly) who is able to undertake assessments as a minimum requirement (with opportunity for allocation to groups where family member attendance is either required or optional)

Person with aphasia time post-stroke equal to or greater than 12 months

Person with aphasia pre-morbid fluent speaker of English

Family member fluent speaker of English

Person with aphasia ability to reliably communicate ‘yes/no’ regardless of communication modality

Person with aphasia ability to manage toileting

Person with aphasia ability to maintain focus for two 50-minute sittings with a 20-minute break

Minimum age

40 Years

Maximum age

No limit

Sex

Both males and females

Can healthy volunteers participate?

Key exclusion criteria

Person with aphasia and family member have a significant/uncorrected psychiatric (including anxiety and depression), vision, and/or hearing impairment

Person with aphasia and family member have a diagnosed cognitive deficit

Person with aphasia currently undergoing formal aphasia-specific intervention

Person with aphasia and family member currently attending a stroke or aphasia group

Study design

Purpose of the study

Treatment

Allocation to intervention

Non-randomised trial

Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)

Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)

Masking / blinding

Blinded (masking used)

Who is / are masked / blinded?

The people assessing the outcomes

Intervention assignment

Parallel

Other design features

Phase

Not Applicable

Type of endpoint/s

Efficacy

Statistical methods / analysis

The number of participants needed to achieve study objectives has not been formally determined. This is an early phase study which seeks to test early-stage hypotheses based on a review of existing exploratory studies.

In order to ensure the three groups are comparable at baseline, group homogeneity will be tested in relation to the following: primary outcome measures, age (years), aphasia severity (Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient score) (Kertesz, 2007), and education (years). The Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA) by ranks (H-test) is the non-parametric alternative to the one-way analysis of variance (F-test) used to test for three or more independent samples (Portney & Watkins, 2009). A significance level of .05 will be used.

Given 1) the use of a small sample size within the present study cannot automatically be considered representative of larger normal distributions and 2) the use of ordinal scale-level measurements, non-parametric statistical analyses will be conducted (Portney & Watkins, 2009). These will involve between- and within-groups analyses.

Within group: Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance by ranks

Between group: Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA) by ranks (H-test)

Reference:
Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (3rd ed.). Pearson Education/Prentice Hall.

Recruitment

Recruitment status

Stopped early

Data analysis

Data analysis is complete

Reason for early stopping/withdrawal

Participant recruitment difficulties

Date of first participant enrolment

Anticipated

1/07/2015

Actual

9/07/2015

Date of last participant enrolment

Anticipated

Actual

5/04/2016

Date of last data collection

Anticipated

Actual

5/10/2016

Sample size

Target

Accrual to date

Final

Recruitment in Australia

Recruitment state(s)

NSW

Recruitment hospital [1]

St Joseph's Hospital - Auburn

Recruitment hospital [2]

Royal Rehabilitation Hospital - Coorabel/Moorong - Ryde

Recruitment hospital [3]

St George Hospital - Kogarah

Recruitment hospital [4]

The Sutherland Hospital - Caringbah

Recruitment postcode(s) [1]

2144 - Auburn

Recruitment postcode(s) [2]

2112 - Ryde

Recruitment postcode(s) [3]

2217 - Kogarah

Recruitment postcode(s) [4]

2229 - Caringbah

Funding & Sponsors

Funding source category [1]

Government body

Name [1]

Australian Research Council

Address [1]

Level 2, 11 Lancaster Place
Canberra Airport ACT 2609
AUSTRALIA

Country [1]

Australia

Primary sponsor type

Individual

Name

Associate Professor Miranda Rose

Address

School of Allied Health, College of Science Health and Engineering
La Trobe University, Bundoora VIC 3086
Australia

Country

Australia

Secondary sponsor category [1]

Individual

Name [1]

Professor Leanne Togher

Address [1]

Department of Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus C42 75 East Street Lidcombe NSW 2141

Country [1]

Australia

Other collaborator category [1]

Individual

Name [1]

Professor Jacinta Douglas

Address [1]

School of Allied Health, College of Science Health and Engineering
La Trobe University, Bundoora VIC 3086
Australia

Country [1]

Australia

Ethics approval

Ethics application status

Approved

Ethics committee name [1]

La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee

Ethics committee address [1]

La Trobe University 
Bundoora VIC 3086

Ethics committee country [1]

Australia

Date submitted for ethics approval [1]

Approval date [1]

09/04/2015

Ethics approval number [1]

15-008

Ethics committee name [2]

St Vincent's Health

Ethics committee address [2]

390 Victoria Street
Darlinghurst NSW 2010

Ethics committee country [2]

Australia

Date submitted for ethics approval [2]

03/08/2015

Approval date [2]

06/10/2015

Ethics approval number [2]

15/175

Summary

Brief summary

The aim of the study is to compare the efficacy of three models of community aphasia groups for participants with aphasia and their nominated family members. 

Outcomes for people with aphasia will be measured in relation to each domain of the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO, 2001): impairment, activity & participation, personal factors, and environmental factors. Quality of life and participant experience of the program will be additional outcome areas of interest. Outcomes for family members will relate to caregiving, psychological health, supported conversation skill, and participant experience of the program.

Hypotheses:

1) Each of the three community aphasia groups will lead to positive outcomes for all people with aphasia at the end of participation in at least one area of outcome measurement,

2) People with aphasia attending the treatment group (known as multidisciplinary-facilitated community aphasia group, or MD-CAG) will show greater gains than people with aphasia attending either of the two active comparison groups,  

3) The gains made by people with aphasia attending MD-CAG will be maintained or will increase further 4-6 weeks after the end of participation,

4) Family members attending MD-CAG and one of the active comparison groups (known as volunteer and peer-facilitated community aphasia group, or VP-CAG), will show gains in at least one area of outcome measurement at the end of participation, 

5) Family members of people with aphasia attending MD-CAG will show greater gains than family members of people with aphasia attending either of the two comparison groups, and

6) The gains made by family members will be maintained or will increase further 4-6 weeks after the end of participation.


Reference:
World Health Organisation. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation.

Trial website

Trial related presentations / publications

Attard, M., Loupis, Y., Togher, L, & Rose, M. The efficacy of an inter-disciplinary community aphasia group for living well with aphasia. Aphasiology (early online) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2017.1381877
Attard, M., Loupis, Y., Togher, L, & Rose, M. Experiences of people with severe aphasia and spouses attending an interdisciplinary community aphasia group. Submitted manuscript under review.
Attard, M., Loupis, Y., Togher, L, & Rose, M. Staff experiences of an interdisciplinary community aphasia group. Submitted manuscript under review.
Attard, M., Loupis, Y., Togher, L., & Rose, M. (2017). Interdisciplinary Community Aphasia Group facilitator program manual. Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University. Open access available from: http://aphasia.community/resources/resources-for-aphasia- groups
Lanyon, L., Attard, M., Togher, L., Worrall, L., & Rose, M. (June 2017). A
metasynthesis of the community aphasia group qualitative and quantitative evidence. Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment 40th Annual Brain Impairment Conference, Melbourne, Australia. (Paper).
Attard, M., Loupis, Y., Togher, L., & Rose, M. (June 2017). Recent pilot evidence: Community aphasia group efficacy. Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment 40th Annual Brain Impairment Conference, Melbourne, Australia. (Paper).
Attard, M., Loupis, Y., Togher, L., Worrall., L., & Rose, M. (May 2017). Implementing Effective Community Aphasia Groups in Your Workplace. Speech Pathology Australia Conference, Sydney, Australia. (Workshop).
Lanyon, L., Attard, M., Togher, L., Worrall, L., & Rose, M. (March 2017). Translating results of community aphasia group research into practice. St Vincent’s Hospital Sub Acute Seminar, Melbourne, Australia. (Paper).
Attard, M., Lanyon, L., Togher, L., Worrall, L., & Rose, M. (December 2016). Community Aphasia Group Efficacy: A summary of qualitative findings. 17th International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference, London, UK. (Paper).
Attard, M., Rose, M., Lanyon, L. & Togher, L. (December 2016). What are the key components of successful Community Aphasia Groups? 17th International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference, London, UK. (Round table parallel session).
Attard, M., Togher, L., & Rose, M. (December 2016). A Phase I Clinical Trial of a Community Aphasia Group: Preliminary results. 17th International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference, London, UK. (Poster).
Attard M., Rose, M., Togher, L., & Loupis, Y. (October 2016). A detailed program model for a Community Aphasia Group: Results from a phase I clinical trial. Aphasiology Symposium of Australia, Adelaide, Australia. (Paper).
Lanyon, L., Attard, M., Loupis, Y., Togher, L., Worrall, L., & Rose, M. (September
2016). Community Aphasia Groups: A clinic-ready model of service. La Trobe
University Research Showcase, Melbourne, Australia. (Poster).
Attard M., Togher, L., Rose, M. (August 2016). A detailed program model for a
Community Aphasia Group: Preliminary results for a Phase I clinical trial. Smart Strokes
Conference, Canberra, Australia. (Poster).
Attard, M., Lanyon, L., Togher, L., & Rose, M. (2015). Consumer perspectives on community aphasia groups: A narrative literature review in the context of psychological well-being. Aphasiology, 29(8), 983-1019.
Attard, M., Rose, M., & Togher, L. (May 2015). Comparing three community aphasia
groups: Method for non-randomised controlled trial. Speech Pathology Australia:
Canberra, Australia. (Poster).
Attard, M., Rose, M., & Togher, L. (April 2015). Community aphasia groups and living
well with aphasia: Update on research. Stroke Recovery Association of NSW & Aphasia NSW State Conference: Sydney, Australia. (Paper).

Public notes

Attachments [1]

/AnzctrAttachments/368651-4. UHEC Application 15-008 APPROVAL.pdf

Contacts

Principal investigator

Name

A/Prof Miranda Rose

Address

Discipline of Speech Pathology, School of Allied Health, College of Science Health and Engineering
La Trobe University, Bundoora VIC 3086
Australia

Country

Australia

Phone

+61394792088

Fax

[email protected]

Contact person for public queries

Name

Michelle Attard

Address

Discipline of Speech Pathology, School of Allied Health, College of Science Health and Engineering
La Trobe University, Bundoora VIC 3086
Australia

Country

Australia

Phone

+61421227785

Fax

[email protected]

Contact person for scientific queries

Name

Miranda Rose

Address

Discipline of Speech Pathology, School of Allied Health, College of Science Health and Engineering
La Trobe University, Bundoora VIC 3086
Australia

Country

Australia

Phone

+61394792088

Fax

[email protected]

No information has been provided regarding IPD availability

What supporting documents are/will be available?

No Supporting Document Provided

Results publications and other study-related documents

Documents added manually

No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.

Documents added automatically

Source	Title	Year of Publication	DOI
Embase	Staff experiences of an interprofessional community aphasia group.	2020	https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2019.1670016

N.B. These documents automatically identified may not have been verified by the study sponsor.

Trial Review

Registering a new trial?

Documents added manually

Documents added automatically