Event Abstract

Back to Event

Results of an International Consensus Meeting to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Aphasia Treatment Research.

Sarah J. Wallace1*, Linda Worrall1, Tanya Rose1, Guylaine Le Dorze2 and Elizabeth Rochon3
  • 1 The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Australia
  • 2 University of Montreal, School of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Canada
  • 3 University of Toronto, Canada

Background: Improving Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia (ROMA) is an international research project which aims to increase standardisation in research outcome measurement through the development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS: an agreed, minimum set of outcomes and outcome measures) for aphasia treatment research. Aims: This poster presents the outcomes of an international consensus meeting informed by two prior phases of research: (1) investigation of stakeholder-important outcomes using consensus processes (See Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze, 2016; Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze, 2017; Wallace, Worrall, Rose, Le Dorze, et al., 2016); and (2) a scoping review of the measurement properties of aphasia outcomes measures. Methods: An international consensus meeting was held in London on 13th December 2016. Consensus on a COS for aphasia treatment research was sought through a three step process: (1) Provision of the results from the ROMA project (stakeholder important outcomes and results of systematic review); (2) A facilitated discussion of potential outcome domains and outcome measures, including advantages and disadvantages for inclusion in the COS; (3) A closed voting system with consensus for inclusion in the COS is defined a priori as agreement on each outcome domain and measure by ≥ 70% of meeting participants. Results: Consensus was reached for measures of: Language: The Western Aphasia Battery Revised (WAB-R) (74% consensus); Psychological well-being: General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 (83% consensus); Quality of Life: Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) (96% consensus). Consensus was not reached for a measure of communication. Conclusions: Synthesised evidence and recommendations regarding important aphasia outcomes and the most appropriate outcome measures for these constructs, may increase the quality of evidence for aphasia treatments and its relevancy to end-users. Dissemination of the final COS to aphasia researchers is integral to its effective implementation. Measures of communication will be considered in a subsequent COS meeting in 2018.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a British Aphasiology Society Initiatives in Aphasia Seed Fund (IASF) grant and funding from the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists.

References

References
Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze. (2016). Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-Delphi consensus study. Aphasiology, 1-31. doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1186265

Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze. (2017). Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-Delphi consensus study. Aphasiology, 31(6), 643-673. doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1186265

Wallace, Worrall, Rose, Le Dorze, Cruice, Isaksen, . . . Gauvreau. (2016). 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., 1-16. doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1194899

Keywords: Aphasia, Core outcome set, consensus, Outcome measurement, Stroke

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 55th Annual Meeting , Baltimore, United States, 5 Nov - 7 Nov, 2017.

Presentation Type: poster presentation

Topic: Consider for student award

Citation: Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, Le Dorze G and Rochon E (2019). Results of an International Consensus Meeting to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Aphasia Treatment Research.. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 55th Annual Meeting . doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2017.223.00072

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 20 Apr 2017; Published Online: 25 Jan 2019.

* Correspondence: Dr. Sarah J Wallace, The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Brisbane, Australia, s.wallace3@uq.edu.au