Department of Linguistics, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2024 May-Jun;59(3):1066-1089. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12983. Epub 2023 Nov 14.
BACKGROUND: People with aphasia (PWA) frequently experience difficulties in understanding longer written content such as paragraphs or books. Reading strategies are a promising approach to treat text-level reading comprehension deficits in PWA. Nevertheless, empirical evidence for their efficacy remains rare. AIMS: The primary objective of this study was to analyse the efficacy of a strategy-based intervention on text-level reading comprehension in PWA. Secondary objectives were to compare the effects of two strategy-based intervention components and to explore potential moderator effects. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A protocol was published prior to data acquisition. In a repeated measures trial, 26 German participants with chronic, post-stroke aphasia participated in a waiting period without aphasia treatment (control condition) followed by a strategy-based intervention called 'Strategiebasierte Textverständnis-Therapie bei Aphasie' (StraTexT, 14 face-to-face-sessions, twice per week, 60 min each). Two strategy combinations, Intervention Micro targeting microstructure and Intervention Macro targeting macrostructure, were applied to newspaper and magazine articles. Participants were randomly allocated to two parallel groups that received these strategy combinations in interchanged sequences. Assessments were implemented before and after each period as well as 3 and 6 months after the intervention. The primary outcome measure was text-level reading comprehension measured with the total score of a German version of the Test de Compréhension de Textes (TCT-D). Secondary outcome measures addressed the self-reported perception of reading abilities, reading activities and feelings about reading (German version of the Comprehensive Assessment of Reading in Aphasia CARA reading questionnaire) as well as selected cognitive functions. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The per-protocol-analysis included data from 22 participants. We found significant small improvements up to 6 months post-intervention compared to pre-intervention in the TCT-D Total (d = 0.35-0.46) as well as medium to large improvements in the CARA questionnaire (d = 0.68-0.96). Up to 3 months after the intervention, treatment-induced improvements in the TCT-D Total were significantly larger than change without treatment during the control condition. There was no evidence of moderator effects. Furthermore, we found improvements in several cognitive functions. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Reading strategies can lead to long-term improvements in text-level reading comprehension and in self-reported reading abilities, feelings about reading and reading activities in aphasia. In regular clinical settings, it seems reasonable to implement both Intervention Micro and Intervention Macro. It remains important to investigate participant characteristics that contribute to treatment success. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Systematic reviews and multiple case studies suggest that reading strategies are a promising approach to treat text-level reading comprehension in aphasia. The efficacy of reading strategies has been demonstrated for different populations. However, to date no group study has evaluated the efficacy of reading strategies on text-level reading comprehension in people with aphasia. What this study adds This study provides the first group-level evidence about the efficacy of a systematic strategy-based intervention in 22 people with post-stroke chronic aphasia. During 14 treatment sessions, participants applied four reading strategies to newspaper and magazine articles within two intervention components called Intervention Micro and Intervention Macro (two strategies per intervention component). We found improvements in text-level reading comprehension for at least 3 months post-intervention, as well as effects on selected cognitive functions and self-reported reading abilities, thoughts and feelings about reading and the ability to engage in reading activities. What are the clinical implications of this work? The strategies and materials evaluated in this study could be used in clinical practice with people with aphasia. In order to replicate treatment effects in clinical practice, we suggest applying the strategy combination with the same protocol features (e.g., frequency, duration, homework, product orientation) as in this study, implementing Intervention Micro and Intervention Macro sequentially in either order. As treatment response was not equal in all individuals, it seems important to investigate individual features that contribute to treatment success.
背景:患有失语症的人(PWA)经常在理解较长的书面内容(如段落或书籍)方面遇到困难。阅读策略是治疗 PWA 文本层面阅读理解缺陷的一种很有前途的方法。然而,其疗效的实证证据仍然很少。
目的:本研究的主要目的是分析基于策略的干预对 PWA 文本层面阅读理解的疗效。次要目的是比较两种基于策略的干预成分的效果,并探讨潜在的调节效应。
方法和程序:在数据采集之前发布了一份方案。在一项重复测量试验中,26 名患有慢性、中风后失语症的德国参与者在接受治疗的等待期(对照组)后参加了一项基于策略的干预,称为“Strategiebasierte Textverständnis-Therapie bei Aphasie”(StraTexT,14 次面对面治疗,每周两次,每次 60 分钟)。两种策略组合,干预微观靶向微观结构和干预宏观靶向宏观结构,应用于报纸和杂志文章。参与者被随机分配到两个平行组,这两个组以交替的顺序接受这些策略组合。在每个阶段前后以及干预后 3 个月和 6 个月进行评估。主要结局测量指标是使用德语版 Test de Compréhension de Textes(TCT-D)的文本层面阅读理解总得分。次要结局测量指标包括自我报告的阅读能力感知、阅读活动和阅读感受(德语版 Comprehensive Assessment of Reading in Aphasia CARA 阅读问卷)以及选定的认知功能。
结果和结论:在符合方案的分析中,22 名参与者的数据被纳入。我们发现,与干预前相比,TCT-D 总得分(d=0.35-0.46)以及 CARA 问卷(d=0.68-0.96)在干预后 6 个月内有显著的小到中等改善。在干预后 3 个月内,治疗引起的 TCT-D 总分改善明显大于对照组在控制条件下的变化。没有证据表明存在调节效应。此外,我们发现认知功能也有所改善。
结论和意义:阅读策略可以导致 PWA 的文本层面阅读理解和自我报告的阅读能力、阅读感受和阅读活动的长期改善。在常规临床环境中,似乎有理由同时实施干预微观和干预宏观。研究有助于治疗成功的参与者特征仍然很重要。
本文添加了什么内容:关于这个主题的系统综述和多个案例研究表明,阅读策略是治疗失语症文本层面阅读理解的一种很有前途的方法。阅读策略的疗效已经在不同的人群中得到了证明。然而,迄今为止,还没有一项组研究评估过阅读策略对 PWA 文本层面阅读理解的疗效。本研究增加了什么内容:本研究提供了关于在 22 名中风后慢性失语症患者中进行系统的基于策略的干预的第一项组水平证据。在 14 次治疗过程中,参与者在两个名为干预微观和干预宏观的干预成分中应用了四种阅读策略,每个干预成分有两种策略(共四种策略)。我们发现,在干预后至少 3 个月内,文本层面阅读理解能力有所提高,同时对选定的认知功能以及自我报告的阅读能力、对阅读的想法和感受以及参与阅读活动的能力也有影响。
这些研究对临床实践有什么意义?本研究中评估的策略和材料可在临床实践中用于失语症患者。为了在临床实践中复制治疗效果,我们建议按照相同的方案特征(如频率、持续时间、家庭作业、产品导向)应用该策略组合,以相同的顺序依次实施干预微观和干预宏观。由于治疗反应在所有个体中并不相同,因此研究有助于治疗成功的个体特征似乎很重要。
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2024
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Health Technol Assess. 2001
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-1-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-5-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-4-29