How intensive does anomia therapy for people with aphasia need to be?

Abstract

The intensity of aphasia therapy has been a key clinical question. The aim of this case-series study was to compare the outcome of intensive and non-intensive therapy in the relearning of words for people with aphasia. Eight participants took part in a study comparing the intensity of delivery of the therapy. Participants received two courses of the same therapy (each lasting 10 sessions) delivered either intensively or non-intensively. Therapy consisted of confrontation naming with progressive phonemic and orthographic cues. Post-therapy assessments were carried out immediately after the study and one month later. Performance was also monitored during each therapy session. Immediately post-therapy, both types of therapy had improved naming accuracy considerably and there was no significant difference between the two interventions. One month later, seven out of eight participants showed a small yet significant difference in naming accuracy, favouring non-intensive over intense therapy. There were no differences in the learning patterns during the therapy sessions between the intensive and non-intensive therapies. For the majority of people with aphasia post-stroke, both intense and non-intense therapy for anomia leads to improved naming performance. Retention at one-month post therapy is relatively superior after non-intensive therapy.

Keywords:

• Aphasia
• Anomia
• Intensity
• Therapy
• Learning

CS was supported by a PhD studentship from the Medical Research Council. We would like to thank the participants with aphasia who took part in this study and their families.