Access to aphasia therapy

People with aphasia should be offered therapy to gain benefits in receptive and expressive language, and communication in everyday environments.

Reference: Brady, Kelly, Godwin, & Enderby, 2012
NHMRC level of Evidence: I

Rationale: The results of a recent Cochrane systematic review showed that aphasia rehabilitation was more effective than no aphasia rehabilitation for functional communication, receptive language and expressive language.

Effectiveness of language therapy post stroke:

In 2012, Brady and colleagues conducted a Cochrane review which included 39 randomised control trials (RCTs) with 2518 participants. The research questions were: 

1. Is speech and language therapy (SLT) more effective than no speech and language therapy?
2. Is speech and language therapy more effective than social supports?
3. Is one approach to therapy more effective than another? 

FINDINGS: The results showed that SLT was more effective than no SLT in the areas of functional communication, receptive language and expressive language. However, it was noted that some studies were reported poorly. There was no evidence of difference between social support interventions and SLT interventions on functional communication. However, a higher drop out rate was noted within the social support groups. In regards to specific treatment types the authors conclude that “there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of any one specific SLT approach over another ” (p2). 

NOTES: In general, the studies included small numbers of participants.