A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing online versus face‐to‐face delivery of an aphasia communication partner training program for student healthcare professionals

Background Training conversation partners of people with aphasia who use facilitative communication strategies is one method that can improve access to healthcare for people with aphasia. However, the efficacy of communication partner training (CPT) has been investigated almost exclusively in the co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of language & communication disorders 2020-11, Vol.55 (6), p.852-866
Hauptverfasser: Power, Emma, Falkenberg, Kate, Barnes, Scott, Elbourn, Elise, Attard, Michelle, Togher, Leanne
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Training conversation partners of people with aphasia who use facilitative communication strategies is one method that can improve access to healthcare for people with aphasia. However, the efficacy of communication partner training (CPT) has been investigated almost exclusively in the context of face‐to‐face (F2F) delivery. Online training may offer more cost‐effective and accessible options to a wider range of conversation partners, including student healthcare professionals. Aims To conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial with student healthcare professionals comparing (1) an online aphasia CPT program, (2) a F2F CPT program and (3) no program (control group) on outcomes relating to attitudes and knowledge of aphasia. Methods & Procedures A 45‐min introductory aphasia CPT program was developed using the theories and techniques of Supported Conversations for Adults with Aphasia (SCA)™. A total of 30 first‐year undergraduates studying occupational therapy at The University of Sydney were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: online CPT delivery, F2F delivery or delayed training control (no program). Outcomes measures included pre‐post‐testing with the Aphasia Attitudes, Strategies and Knowledge (AASK) survey. Outcomes & Results A significant difference existed for the AASK survey pre‐post‐change scores between the online, F2F and control groups (χ2(2) = 20.038, p = 0.000). Post‐hoc analysis revealed that, compared with the control (Ctrl) group, participants in both the online and F2F groups had significantly higher knowledge of aphasia (Online versus Ctrl: p = 0.000; F2F versus control: p = 0.002), knowledge of facilitative strategies (Online versus Ctrl: p = 0.000; F2F versus Ctrl: p = 0.002), and positive attitudes towards aphasia (Online versus Ctrl: p = 0.031; F2F versus Ctrl: p = 0.032). No significant difference was observed between the online and F2F groups for the Total or any subtotals (p = 1.000). Conclusions and Implications The results from this pilot randomized controlled trial indicate that online delivery of the 45‐min introductory CPT is equally as efficacious as F2F delivery, and thus may be a viable mode of delivery for future aphasia CPT programs. These pilot results pave the way for a larger study that will comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of an online aphasia CPT program for improving attitudes, knowledge and skills in a broad range of student healthcare professionals. What this paper adds What is already
ISSN:1368-2822
1460-6984
DOI:10.1111/1460-6984.12556