Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? an international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 39, Issue 14, 2017, Pages 1364-1379

  Wallace, Sarah J ^a   Worrall, Linda ^a   Rose, Tanya ^a   Le Dorze, Guylaine ^b   Cruice, Madeline ^c   Isaksen, Jytte ^d   Kong, Anthony Pak Hin ^e   Simmons Mackie, Nina ^f   Scarinci, Nerina ^a   Gauvreau, Christine Alary ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^f SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Aphasia; family caregivers; ICF; patient involvement; patient relevant outcome; treatment outcome

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; APHASIA; CLINICAL TRIAL; DISABILITY; FAMILY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF FUNCTIONING, DISABILITY AND HEALTH; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; APHASIA; COMMUNICATION; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FAMILY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF FUNCTIONING, DISABILITY AND HEALTH; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84976288661     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1194899     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Porter ME, Lee TH., The strategy that will fix health care. Harvard Bus Rev. 2013;91:50.
2. World Health Organization. People-centred health care. A policy framework. [Internet]. Available from:http://www.wpro.who.int/health_services/people_at_the_centre_of_care/documents/ENG-PCIPolicyFramework.pdf2007
3. Kagan A, Simmons-Mackie N, Rowland A, et al. Counting what counts:a framework for capturing real-life outcomes of aphasia intervention. Aphasiology. 2008;22:258–280.
4. Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, et al. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. [Internte]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012. Available from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub3/abstract
5. Elsner B, Kugler J, Pohl M, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;5:CD009760.
6. Xiong T, Bunning K, Horton S, et al. Assessing and comparing the outcome measures for the rehabilitation of adults with communication disorders in randomised controlled trials:an international classification of functioning, disability and health approach. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:2272–2290.
7. Williamson P, Clarke M., The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative:its role in improving cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;5:ED000041.
8. Clarke M., Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials. 2007;8:39.
9. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials:issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.
10. Brady MC, Ali M, Fyndanis C, et al. Time for a step change? Improving the efficiency, relevance, reliability, validity and transparency of aphasia rehabilitation research through core outcome measures, a common data set and improved reporting criteria. Aphasiology. 2014;28:1385–1392.
11. European Commission. Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Action:Comparing the effectiveness of existing healthcare interventions in the adult population (SC1-PM-10-2017). Available from:http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2435-sc1-pm-10-2017.html.
12. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C., Consumer involvement in health research:a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213–236.
13. UN General Assembly. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. 2006. [Internet]. Available from:http://www.un.org/.
14. World Health Organization. Geneva:World Health Organization. 2011 [Internet]. Available from:www.who.int.
15. National Health and Medical Research Council. The Consumers Health Forum of Australia Inc. Statement on Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research. Canberra:Commonwealth of Australia; 2002.
16. National Health and Medical Research Council. The Consumers Health Forum of Australia Inc. A model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research. Canberra:Commonwealth of Australia; 2005.
17. Department of Health. Equity and excellence. Liberating the NHS. London:DH; 2010.
18. O'Donnell M, Entwistle V., Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded. Health Policy. 2004;70:281–290.
19. National Institute for Health Research. Programme grants for applied research:Multimorbidities themed calls. 2015.
20. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration:guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.
21. Higgins J, Green S., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.[Internet]. Available from:http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
22. de Wit M, Abma T, Koelewijn-van Loon M, et al. Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research:a responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002241.
23. Serrano-Aguilar P, Trujillo-Martin MM, Ramos-Goni JM, et al. Patient involvement in health research:a contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69:920–925.
24. Carr A, Hewlett S, Hughes R, et al. Rheumatology outcomes:the patient's perspective. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:880–883.
25. Sanderson T, Hewlett S, Calnan M, et al. Exploring the cultural validity of rheumatology outcomes. Br J Nurs. 2012;21:1015–1020.
26. Sanderson T, Morris M, Calnan M, et al. What outcomes from pharmacologic treatments are important to people with rheumatoid arthritis? Creating the basis of a patient core set. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:640–646.
27. Arnold LM, Crofford LJ, Mease PJ, et al. Patient perspectives on the impact of fibromyalgia. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:114–120.
28. Kirwan J, Heiberg T, Hewlett S, et al. Outcomes from the patient perspective workshop at OMERACT 6. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:868–872.
29. Mease PJ, Arnold LM, Crofford LJ, et al. Identifying the clinical domains of fibromyalgia:contributions from clinician and patient Delphi exercises. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:952–960.
30. Sinha IP, Gallagher R, Williamson PR, et al. Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood asthma:a survey of clinicians, parents, and young people. Trials. 2012;13:103.
31. Morris C, Janssens A, Allard A, et al. Informing the NHS outcomes framework:evaluating meaningful health outcomes for children with neurodisability using multiple methods including systematic review, qualitative research, Delphi survey and consensus meeting. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014;2:
32. Bartlett SJ, Hewlett S, Bingham CO, 3rd, et al. Identifying core domains to assess flare in rheumatoid arthritis:an OMERACT international patient and provider combined Delphi consensus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:1855–1860.
33. Kirwan JR, Fries JF, Hewlett SE, et al. Patient perspective workshop:moving towards OMERACT guidelines for choosing or developing instruments to measure patient-reported outcomes. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1711–1715.
34. de Wit MP, Abma TA, Koelewijn-van Loon MS, et al. What has been the effect on trial outcome assessments of a decade of patient participation in OMERACT? J Rheumatol. 2014;41:177–184.
35. Worrall L, Sherratt S, Rogers P, et al. What people with aphasia want:their goals according to the ICF. Aphasiology. 2011;25:309–322.
36. Brown K, Worrall LE, Davidson B, et al. Living successfully with aphasia:a qualitative meta-analysis of the perspectives of individuals with aphasia, family members, and speech-language pathologists. Int J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2011;14:141–155.
37. Grawburg M, Howe T, Worrall L, et al. Third-party disability in family members of people with aphasia:a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:1324–1341.
38. Howe T, Davidson B, Worrall L, et al. You needed to rehab families as well':family members' own goals for aphasia rehabilitation. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012;47:511–521.
39. Heiligenhaus A, Foeldvari I, Edelsten C, et al. Proposed outcome measures for prospective clinical trials in juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis:a consensus effort from the multinational interdisciplinary working group for uveitis in childhood. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64:1365–1372.
40. Schmitt J, Langan S, Stamm T, et al. Harmonizing outcome measurements in Eczema Delphi p. Core outcome domains for controlled trials and clinical recordkeeping in eczema:international multiperspective Delphi consensus process. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131:623–630.
41. Ginsburg F, Rapp R., Disability worlds. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2013;42:53–68.
42. World Health Organization. World Health Organization:International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland:World Health Organization; 2001.
43. Cruice M., The contribution and impact of the international classification of functioning, disability and health on quality of life in communication disorders. Int J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2008;10:38–49.
44. Howe TJ, Worrall LE, Hickson LMH., Interviews with people with aphasia:environmental factors that influence their community participation. Aphasiology. 2008;22:1092–1120.
45. Grawburg M, Howe T, Worrall L, et al. Describing the impact of aphasia on close family members using the ICF framework. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;36:1184–1195.
46. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation:ICF activity. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:315–340.
47. Salter K, Jutai J, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation:ICF participation. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:507–528.
48. Salter K, Jutai J, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation:ICF body functions. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:191–207.
49. Brandenburg C, Worrall L, Rodriguez A, et al. Crosswalk of participation self-report measures for aphasia to the ICF:what content is being measured? Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:1113–1124.
50. Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, et al. ICF linking rules:an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:212–218.
51. Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, et al. Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34:205–210.
52. Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, et al. Measuring outcomes in aphasia research:a review of current practice and an agenda for standardisation. Aphasiology. 2014;28:1364–1384.
53. Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose TL, Le Dorze G. Core outcomes in aphasia treatment research:an e-Delphi consensus study of international aphasia researchers. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol, in press.
54. Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose TL, Le Dorze G. Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-Delphi consensus study. Aphasiology. 2016. [Epub02687038.2016.1/02687038.2016.1186265.
55. World Health Organization. Definition of Region Groupings. [Internet]. Available from:http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/definition_regions/en/.2014.
56. Kagan A, Kimelman MDZ., Informed consent in aphasia research:Myth or reality? Clin Aphasiol. 1995;23:65–75.
57. Rose T, Worrall L, Hickson L, et al. Do people with aphasia want written stroke and aphasia information? a verbal survey exploring preferences for when and how to provide stroke and aphasia information. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010;17:79–98.
58. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH., Group techniques for program planning:a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, Ill:Scott, Foresman; 1975. p. 174.
59. Douglas RS, Tsirbas A, Gordon M, et al. Development of criteria for evaluating clinical response in thyroid eye disease using a modified Delphi technique. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1155–1160.
60. Khanna D, Lovell DJ, Giannini E, et al. Development of a provisional core set of response measures for clinical trials of systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:703–709.
61. Lamb SE, Jorstad-Stein EC, Hauer K, et al. Prevention of Falls Network E, Outcomes Consensus G. Development of a common outcome data set for fall injury prevention trials:the prevention of falls network Europe consensus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:1618–1622.
62. Kagan A, Black SE, Duchan JF, et al. Training volunteers as conversation partners using “supported conversation for adults with aphasia” (SCA):a controlled trial. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;44:624–638.
63. Garcia LJ, Laroche C, Barrette J., Work integration issues go beyond the nature of the communication disorder. J Commun Disord. 2002;35:187–211.
64. Lomas J, Pickard L, Mohide A., Patient versus clinician item generation for quality-of-life measures:the case of language-disabled adults. Med Care. 1987;25:764–769.
65. Aspinal F, Hughes R, Dunckley M, et al. What is important to measure in the last months and weeks of life?:a modified nominal group study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2006;43:393–403.
66. Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, et al. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320:976–980.
67. Kagan A., Supported conversation for adults with aphasia:methods and resources for training conversation partners. Aphasiology. 1998;12:816–830.
68. Graneheim UH, Lundman B., Qualitative content analysis in nursing research:concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Edu Today. 2004;24:105–112.
69. Koch T. Establishing rigour in qualitative research:the decision trail 1993. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53:91–100.
70. Cohen J., A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measure. 1960;20:37–46.
71. Landis JR, Koch GG., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
72. Williams SE., The impact of aphasia on marital satisfaction. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:361–367.
73. Parr S., Living with severe aphasia:tracking social exclusion. Aphasiology. 2007;21:98–123.
74. Cruice M, Worrall L, Hickson L., Quantifying aphasic people's social lives in the context of non‐aphasic peers. Aphasiology. 2006;20:1210–1225.
75. Davidson B, Howe T, Worrall L, et al. Social participation for older people with aphasia:the impact of communication disability on friendships. Topics Stroke Rehabil. 2008;15:325–340.
76. Northcott S, Hilari K., Why do people lose their friends after a stroke? Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2011;46:524–534.
77. Michallet B, Tétreault S, Le Dorze G., The consequences of severe aphasia on the spouses of aphasic people:a description of the adaptation process. Aphasiology. 2003;17:835–859.
78. Pellerin C, Rochette A, Racine E., Social participation of relatives post-stroke:the role of rehabilitation and related ethical issues. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:1055–1064.
79. Le Dorze G, Signori FH., Needs, barriers and facilitators experienced by spouses of people with aphasia. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32:1073–1087.