RESUMO
PURPOSE: Specifying the active ingredients in aphasia interventions can inform treatment theory and improve clinical implementation. This secondary analysis examined three practice-related predictors of treatment response in semantic feature verification (SFV) treatment. We hypothesized that (a) successful feature verification practice would be associated with naming outcomes if SFV operates similarly to standard feature generation semantic feature analysis and (b) successful retrieval practice would be associated with naming outcomes for treated, but not semantically related, untreated words if SFV operates via a retrieval practice-oriented lexical activation mechanism. METHOD: Item-level data from nine participants with poststroke aphasia who received SFV treatment reported in the work of Evans, Cavanaugh, Quique, et al. (2021) were analyzed using Bayesian generalized linear mixed-effects models. Models evaluated whether performance on three treatment components (facilitated retrieval, feature verification, and effortful retrieval) moderated treatment response for treated and semantically related, untreated words. RESULTS: There was no evidence for or against a relationship between successful feature verification practice and treatment response. In contrast, there was a robust relationship between the two retrieval practice components and treatment response for treated words only. DISCUSSION: Findings were consistent with the second hypothesis: Retrieval practice, but not feature verification practice, appears to be a practice-related predictor of treatment response in SFV. However, treatment components are likely interdependent, and feature verification may still be an active ingredient in SFV. Further research is needed to evaluate the causal role of treatment components on treatment outcomes in aphasia.
Assuntos
Afasia , Humanos , Teorema de Bayes , Afasia/diagnóstico , Afasia/etiologia , Afasia/terapia , Semântica , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot a novel treatment framework called BEARS (Balancing Effort, Accuracy, and Response Speed). People with aphasia (PWA) have been shown to maladaptively balance speed and accuracy during language tasks. BEARS is designed to train PWA to balance speed-accuracy trade-offs and improve system calibration (i.e., to adaptively match system use with its current capability), which was hypothesized to improve treatment outcomes by maximizing retrieval practice and minimizing error learning. In this study, BEARS was applied in the context of a semantically oriented anomia treatment based on semantic feature verification (SFV). Method Nine PWA received 25 hr of treatment in a multiple-baseline single-case series design. BEARS + SFV combined computer-based SFV with clinician-provided BEARS metacognitive training. Naming probe accuracy, efficiency, and proportion of "pass" responses on inaccurate trials were analyzed using Bayesian generalized linear mixed-effects models. Generalization to discourse and correlations between practice efficiency and treatment outcomes were also assessed. Results Participants improved on naming probe accuracy and efficiency of treated and untreated items, although untreated item gains could not be distinguished from the effects of repeated exposure. There were no improvements on discourse performance, but participants demonstrated improved system calibration based on their performance on inaccurate treatment trials, with an increasing proportion of "pass" responses compared to paraphasia or timeout nonresponses. In addition, levels of practice efficiency during treatment were positively correlated with treatment outcomes, suggesting that improved practice efficiency promoted greater treatment generalization and improved naming efficiency. Conclusions BEARS is a promising, theoretically motivated treatment framework for addressing the interplay between effort, accuracy, and processing speed in aphasia. This study establishes the feasibility of BEARS + SFV and provides preliminary evidence for its efficacy. This study highlights the importance of considering processing efficiency in anomia treatment, in addition to performance accuracy. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14935812.
Assuntos
Ursidae , Animais , Anomia/terapia , Teorema de Bayes , Humanos , Terapia da Linguagem , Tempo de Reação , Semântica , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether differences in pediatric tonsillectomy use by race/ethnicity and type of insurance were impacted by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery's 2011 tonsillectomy clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: We included children aged <15 years from Florida or South Carolina who underwent tonsillectomy in 2004-2017. Annual tonsillectomy rates within groups defined by race/ethnicity and type of health insurance were calculated using US Census data, and interrupted time series analyses were used to compare the guidelines' impact on utilization across groups. RESULTS: The average annual tonsillectomy rate was greater among non-Hispanic white children (66 procedures per 10â000 children) than non-Hispanic black (38 procedures per 10â000 children) or Hispanic children (41 procedures per 10â000 children) (P < .001). From the year before to the year after the guidelines' release, tonsillectomy use decreased among non-Hispanic white children (-11.1 procedures per 10â000 children), but not among non-Hispanic black (-0.9 procedures per 10â000 children) or Hispanic children (+3.9 procedures per 10â000 children) (P < .05). Use was greater among publicly than privately insured children (75 vs 52 procedures per 10â000 children, P < .001). The guidelines were associated with a reversal of the upward trend in use seen in 2004-2010 among publicly insured children (-5.5 procedures per 10â000 children per year, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Tonsillectomy use is greatest among white and publicly insured children. However, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery's 2011 clinical practice guideline statement was associated with an immediate decrease and change in use trends in these groups, narrowing differences in utilization by race/ethnicity and type of insurance.
Assuntos
Seguro Saúde , Utilização de Procedimentos e Técnicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Tonsilectomia/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Negro ou Afro-Americano , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Estudos Transversais , Etnicidade , Feminino , Florida , Hispânico ou Latino , Humanos , Masculino , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Estudos Retrospectivos , South Carolina , População BrancaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To examine geographic and demographic variation for outpatient tonsillectomy in children nationally. STUDY DESIGN: The 2006 National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery was analyzed to describe outpatient tonsillectomy in children. Rates by age, sex, region, urban/rural residence, and payment source were calculated with 2006 population estimates from the Census Bureau and the National Health Interview Survey as denominators. Rates were compared with Z tests. RESULTS: In 2006, approximately 583 000 (95% CI, 370 000-796 000) outpatient tonsillectomy procedures were performed in children in the United States. Rates per 10 000 children were lower in children 13 to 17 years old (33.8 per 10 000) than in both children 7 to 12 years old (91.3; P < .05) and children 0 to 6 years old (102.9; P < .001). Compared with the South, tonsillectomy rates were lower in the West (29 per 10 000 versus 125 per 10 000; P < .01) and not significantly different in other regions. Compared with large central metropolitan areas, tonsillectomy rates were higher in small/medium metropolitan areas (118 per 10 000 versus 42 per 10 000; P < .05), and not significantly different in large fringe or non-metropolitan areas. Tonsillectomy rates were similar for children insured by Medicaid compared with those insured by private sources. Compared with older children (13-17 years), children in the younger age groups (0-6 years, 7-12 years) underwent tonsillectomy more commonly for airway obstruction (69.5% and 59.2% versus 34.3%, P < .05 for both). Compared with older children, younger children (0-6 years) underwent tonsillectomy less commonly for infection (40.4% versus 61.0% [7-12 years] and 72.2% [13-17 years], P < .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Use of tonsillectomy in the ambulatory setting varies across age groups, geographic regions, levels of urbanization, and indication. Further research is warranted to examine these differences.