Closing the evidence-practice gaps in aphasia management: are we there yet? Where has a decade of implementation research taken us? A review and guide for clinicians

ABSTRACT

Background: There are evidence-practice gaps in all areas of aphasia management across the continuum of care. Despite the recognition that effective implementation strategies are needed to improve the consistency of speech pathologists’ aphasia management practices, there have been few studies investigating this important issue. Therefore, little is known about the effectiveness of implementation strategies in the field of aphasiology. In light of the developing field of knowledge translation, it is important to review the aphasia implementation literature to highlight current trends, draw together findings, and determine future implementation research needs.

Aims: To critically review, summarise, and discuss the implementation literature in the field of aphasiology to date, in order to guide clinical aphasiologists to work towards closing the evidence-practice gaps in aphasia management.

Main contribution: A review of the literature in this developing area of expertise in the field of aphasiology, with examples of practical applications.

Conclusions: Only six implementation studies have been published in aphasia (related to conversation partner training, discourse analysis, information provision, and collaborative goal-setting practices), showing there is a need for capacity building in this area. Therefore, we are not yet able to state what interventions are effective in which context, nor fully understand how behaviour change occurs for clinicians providing aphasia management. Implications for speech-language pathologists are discussed. An overarching call to action is the need for clinicians and researchers to work together to drive future implementation efforts that can succeed in closing the aphasia management evidence-practice gaps.

KEYWORDS:

• Aphasia
• implementation
• review
• evidence-based practice
• knowledge translation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.