Understanding the impact of group therapy on health-related quality of life of people with Aphasia: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aphasia is a communication disorder, resulting in difficulty with speaking, understanding, reading, and writing. Aphasia has been linked to decreased social networks, depression, and low health-related quality of life (HRQL). Speech-language pathologists provide therapy through various models for adults with aphasia, including group speech and language therapy. This scoping review aimed to identify, summarize, and appraise peer-reviewed texts that consider HRQL in adults with aphasia who are receiving group speech and language therapy. The research questions that guided the review were: What measures were used to capture HRQL outcomes? Does HRQL change as a result of participation in group language treatment? A systematic literature search developed and implemented by a health sciences librarian identified full-text journal articles via electronic searches of five databases. To be included, studies had to explore adults with aphasia, participating in group language therapy, with a HRQL outcome measure. Relevant studies were assessed for methodological quality and level of evidence. Thirteen articles met inclusion criteria, including two randomized control trials, eight case studies, and three qualitative studies. HRQL measures used and type of intervention varied across studies. HRQL measures showed generally positive outcomes of group language therapy, and participants reported improved HRQL after group language therapy. The current evidence is not comprehensive due to the overall lack of high-quality studies and the low level of evidence available. Further well-designed studies would benefit our understanding of how group therapy may improve HRQL for adults with aphasia.
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 | 0.020 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".