Intensive Versus Distributed Aphasia Therapy

This seems odd. 
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/06/18/STROKEAHA.115.009522.abstract

A Nonrandomized, Parallel-Group, Dosage-Controlled Study

1. Jade Dignam, BSpPath,
2. David Copland, PhD,
3. Eril McKinnon, BSpPath,
4. Penni Burfein, BSpPath,
5. Kate O’Brien, BSpPath,
6. Anna Farrell, PhD and
7. Amy D. Rodriguez, PhD

+ Author Affiliations

1. From the UQ Centre for Clinical Research (J.D., D.C., K.O., A.D.R.) and NHMRC Centre of Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (J.D., D.C., E.M., A.D.R.), The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; and Speech Pathology Department, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (J.D., P.B., A.F.).

1. Correspondence to Jade Dignam, BSpPath, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, 4029 Australia. E-mail j.dignam@uq.edu.au

Abstract

Background and Purpose—Most studies comparing different levels of aphasia treatment intensity have not controlled the dosage of therapy provided. Consequently, the true effect of treatment intensity in aphasia rehabilitation remains unknown. Aphasia Language Impairment and Functioning Therapy is an intensive, comprehensive aphasia program. We investigated the efficacy of a dosage-controlled trial of Aphasia Language Impairment and Functioning Therapy, when delivered in an intensive versus distributed therapy schedule, on communication outcomes in participants with chronic aphasia.

Methods—Thirty-four adults with chronic, poststroke aphasia were recruited to participate in an intensive (n=16; 16 hours per week; 3 weeks) versus distributed (n=18; 6 hours per week; 8 weeks) therapy program. Treatment included 48 hours of impairment, functional, computer, and group-based aphasia therapy.

Results—Distributed therapy resulted in significantly greater improvements on the Boston Naming Test when compared with intensive therapy immediately post therapy (P=0.04) and at 1-month follow-up (P=0.002). We found comparable gains on measures of participants’ communicative effectiveness, communication confidence, and communication-related quality of life for the intensive and distributed treatment conditions at post-therapy and 1-month follow-up.

Conclusions—Aphasia Language Impairment and Functioning Therapy resulted in superior clinical outcomes on measures of language impairment when delivered in a distributed versus intensive schedule. The therapy progam had a positive effect on participants’ functional communication and communication-related quality of life, regardless of treatment intensity. These findings contribute to our understanding of the effect of treatment intensity in aphasia rehabilitation and have important clinical implications for service delivery models.