Impact of aphasia on communication in couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communication is at the heart of relationships, especially for couples. When language is altered, as it is in aphasia, communication in couples can be affected. AIMS: To explore how members of a couple perceive the impact of aphasia on their communication. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Nine French-speaking couples participated in the study. One member of each couple had chronic stroke-related aphasia, which varied in type and severity. The 18 participants took part in individual semi-structured interviews to understand their perspective on communication within their couple. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed with a qualitative thematic analysis. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: (1) experiencing limitations in conversation; (2) assuming changed speaking and listening roles; and (3) experiencing new emotions, feelings and reactions in communication. Couples experienced diminished frequency and duration of conversations as well as restrained topics after the onset of aphasia. Ten participants reported that each member's communication role of listener versus speaker had changed, and that the person with aphasia became a less active participant. Communication was described as 'positive' before aphasia and 'fine' to 'difficult' following aphasia. Persons with aphasia and spouses expressed experiencing difficulties managing emotions related to communication. Frustration and caution towards the other member of the couple had been associated with aphasia. In addition, five spouses reported that they refrained from initiating discussions on specific topics in order to maintain a positive relationship with the person with aphasia. CONCLUSION & IMPLICATIONS: The results describe some of the consequences of aphasia on communication in couples. Clinicians could use interviews to understand the impact of aphasia on a couple's communication. This may help to design communication partner training (CPT) that better aligns with the particular needs of couples living with aphasia, acknowledging the importance of emotional dimensions of relationships. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject The general psychosocial impacts of aphasia on persons with aphasia and spouses are known. Their conversations have been described and used as a focus for CPT. However, CPT may be difficult to implement in clinical settings. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This paper provides in-depth descriptions of perceived changes in relational or transactional communication by the PWA and their spouse. The frequency, duration and topics of conversations changed and emotions such as frustration and caution appeared. Participants assumed changed speaking and listening roles. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The participants' description of communication could be used by speech-language pathologists when conducting CPT to illustrate how aphasia affects communication in couples. Emotions emerging as a result of changes in communication following aphasia should be assessed before CPT and could be a starting point to work on communication. This could support clients' commitment in CPT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".