↓ Skip to main content

Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? an international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF

Overview of attention for article published in Disability & Rehabilitation, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 4,141)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
74 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
170 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
319 Mendeley
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
Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? an international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF
Published in
Disability & Rehabilitation, June 2016
DOI 10.1080/09638288.2016.1194899
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah J. Wallace, Linda Worrall, Tanya Rose, Guylaine Le Dorze, Madeline Cruice, Jytte Isaksen, Anthony Pak Hin Kong, Nina Simmons-Mackie, Nerina Scarinci, Christine Alary Gauvreau

Abstract

To identify important treatment outcomes from the perspective of people with aphasia and their families using the ICF as a frame of reference. The nominal group technique was used with people with aphasia and their family members in seven countries to identify and rank important treatment outcomes from aphasia rehabilitation. People with aphasia identified outcomes for themselves; and family members identified outcomes for themselves and for the person with aphasia. Outcomes were analysed using qualitative content analysis and ICF linking. A total of 39 people with aphasia and 29 family members participated in one of 16 nominal groups. Inductive qualitative content analysis revealed the following six themes: (1) Improved communication; (2) Increased life participation; (3) Changed attitudes through increased awareness and education about aphasia; (4) Recovered normality; (5) Improved physical and emotional well-being; and (6) Improved health (and support) services. Prioritized outcomes for both participant groups linked to all ICF components; primary activity/participation (39%) and body functions (36%) for people with aphasia, and activity/participation (49%) and environmental factors (28%) for family members. Outcomes prioritized by family members relating to the person with aphasia, primarily linked to body functions (60%). People with aphasia and their families identified treatment outcomes which span all components of the ICF. This has implications for research outcome measurement and clinical service provision which currently focuses on the measurement of body function outcomes. The wide range of desired outcomes generated by both people with aphasia and their family members, highlights the importance of collaborative goal setting within a family-centred approach to rehabilitation. These results will be combined with other stakeholder perspectives to establish a core outcome set for aphasia treatment research. Implications for Rehabilitation Important outcomes for people with aphasia and their families span all components of the ICF. The relevancy and translation of research findings may be increased by measuring and reporting research outcomes which are important to people living with aphasia. The results of this study indicate that important treatment outcomes for people living with aphasia most frequently link to the activity/participation and body function components of the ICF. The outcomes identified in this study suggest a broad role for clinicians working in aphasia rehabilitation. The categories of identified outcomes may be used clinically as a starting point in goal-setting discussions with clients and their families.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 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 319 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 319 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 53 17%
Student > Master 41 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 11%
Researcher 28 9%
Other 9 3%
Other 47 15%
Unknown 107 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 69 22%
Psychology 29 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 7%
Linguistics 20 6%
Neuroscience 19 6%
Other 44 14%
Unknown 117 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 25 January 2023.
All research outputs
#764,056
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Disability & Rehabilitation
#49
of 4,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,707
of 373,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disability & Rehabilitation
#2
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 373,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.