↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility and cost analysis of implementing high intensity aphasia clinics within a sub-acute setting

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Speech Language Pathology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Feasibility and cost analysis of implementing high intensity aphasia clinics within a sub-acute setting
Published in
Advances in Speech Language Pathology, March 2014
DOI 10.3109/17549507.2014.887777
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Wenke, Melissa Lawrie, Tania Hobson, Wendy Comben, Michelle Romano, Elizabeth Ward, Elizabeth Cardell

Abstract

Abstract The current study explored the clinical feasibility and costs of embedding three different intensive service delivery models for aphasia treatment (computer, group therapy, and therapy with a speech pathology therapy assistant) within three sub-acute facilities. The study employed a two cohort comparison design, with the first cohort (n = 22) receiving the standard service of treatment currently offered. This treatment was delivered by a speech-language pathologist and involved on average 3 hours of treatment/week over 8 weeks. Participants in the second cohort (n = 31) received one of the three intensive treatment models providing up to 9 hours of therapy/week for 11 weeks. Organizational data was collected throughout treatment, with participant, caregiver, and clinician satisfaction with the intensive models also being measured. Participants completed the spoken language production sub-tests and the Disability Questionnaire of the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT) pre- and post-treatment. All intensive models yielded high participant attendance, satisfaction, and significant improvements to the CAT sub-tests. The pro-rata cost of providing treatment per hour per client for the computer and group therapy models was found to be ˜ 30% cheaper compared to the standard service. The outcomes support the potential feasibility of embedding the different models into sub-acute facilities to enhance client access to intensive treatment for aphasia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 100 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Master 16 16%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 20%
Psychology 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Linguistics 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 23 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Speech Language Pathology
#646
of 832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,668
of 235,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Speech Language Pathology
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 235,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.