↓ Skip to main content

The Acute Aphasia IMplementation Study (AAIMS): a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
129 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.
Article details
Title
The Acute Aphasia IMplementation Study (AAIMS): a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial
Published in
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, August 2018
DOI 10.1111/1460-6984.12419
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Effective implementation strategies to improve speech and language therapists' (SLTs) aphasia management practices are needed. Australian SLTs working in the acute setting have reported inconsistent implementation of post-stroke aphasia guideline recommendations. Therefore, implementation efforts to address these gaps are necessary. However, little is known about the effectiveness of behaviour-change strategies in SLTs providing acute aphasia management. This study designed and tested the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of a tailored implementation strategy to improve acute SLTs' uptake of evidence in two areas of practice: aphasia-friendly information provision; and collaborative goal setting. A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial design was used (retrospective trial registration number ACTRN12618000170224). Four acute SLT teams were randomly assigned to receive either Intervention A (targeted at improving information provision) or Intervention B (targeted at improving collaborative goal setting), and were blinded to their allocation. Interventions were tailored to address known barriers and included a face-to-face workshop incorporating behaviour-change techniques. Outcomes addressed the research questions of feasibility (e.g., treatment fidelity and retention of participants), acceptability (e.g., post-study focus groups) and potential effectiveness (e.g., medical record audits and behaviour construct surveys). The quantitative data were recorded at baseline and 3-6-month follow-up, allowing for change scores to be calculated. All four clusters completed the study, with 37 SLTs participating. The majority of participants were female (36/37 = 97.3%), entry-level clinicians (15/37 = 40.5%), with a mean age of 30 years. Medical record data from 107 patients were included (post-intervention n = 61; information provision intervention n = 36, goal-setting intervention n = 25). Overall, there was a significant improvement in the target behaviour for Intervention A (mean improvement 52.78%, p = 0.001), but a small non-significant change in the target behaviour for Intervention B (8.46%, p = 0.406). There were potentially significant changes seen in several, but not all, of the domains targeted by the interventions (e.g., Knowledge (p = 0.014), Beliefs about Capabilities (p = 0.032), and Environmental Context and Resources (p = 0.000) for Intervention A). This study showed that a tailored implementation intervention targeting acute SLTs' aphasia management practices was feasible to deliver and acceptable for most participants. In addition, the interventions were potentially effective, particularly for the information provision behaviour targeted by Intervention A. It was possible partially to explain the mechanisms of behaviour change that occurred during the study.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 12 9%
Other 6 5%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 50 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 25 19%
Psychology 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 55 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 June 2022.
All research outputs
#2,590,464
of 29,348,413 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
#201
of 1,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,433
of 347,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,348,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 347,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.