Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Apr;24(19):1–176. doi: 10.3310/hta24190

Computerised speech and language therapy or attention control added to usual care for people with long-term post-stroke aphasia: the Big CACTUS three-arm RCT.

Rebecca Palmer, Munyaradzi Dimairo, Nicholas Latimer, Elizabeth Cross, Marian Brady, Pam Enderby, Audrey Bowen, Steven Julious, Madeleine Harrison, Abualbishr Alshreef, Ellen Bradley, Arjun Bhadhuri, Tim Chater, Helen Hughes, Helen Witts, Esther Herbert, Cindy Cooper
PMCID: PMC7232133  PMID: 32369007

Abstract

BACKGROUND

People with aphasia may improve their communication with speech and language therapy many months/years after stroke. However, NHS speech and language therapy reduces in availability over time post stroke.

OBJECTIVE

This trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-managed computerised speech and language therapy to provide additional therapy.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, superiority, single-blind, parallel-group, individually randomised (stratified block randomisation, stratified by word-finding severity and site) adjunct trial.

SETTING

Twenty-one UK NHS speech and language therapy departments.

PARTICIPANTS

People with post-stroke aphasia (diagnosed by a speech and language therapist) with long-standing (> 4 months) word-finding difficulties.

INTERVENTIONS

The groups were (1) usual care; (2) daily self-managed computerised word-finding therapy tailored by speech and language therapists and supported by volunteers/speech and language therapy assistants for 6 months plus usual care (computerised speech and language therapy); and (3) activity/attention control (completion of puzzles and receipt of telephone calls from a researcher for 6 months) plus usual care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Co-primary outcomes - change in ability to find treated words of personal relevance in a bespoke naming test (impairment) and change in functional communication in conversation rated on the activity scale of the Therapy Outcome Measures (activity) 6 months after randomisation. A key secondary outcome was participant-rated perception of communication and quality of life using the Communication Outcomes After Stroke questionnaire at 6 months. Outcomes were assessed by speech and language therapists using standardised procedures. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and an accessible EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, measuring quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

A total of 818 patients were assessed for eligibility and 278 participants were randomised between October 2014 and August 2016. A total of 240 participants (86 usual care, 83 computerised speech and language therapy, 71 attention control) contributed to modified intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months. The mean improvements in word-finding were 1.1% (standard deviation 11.2%) for usual care, 16.4% (standard deviation 15.3%) for computerised speech and language therapy and 2.4% (standard deviation 8.8%) for attention control. Computerised speech and language therapy improved word-finding 16.2% more than usual care did (95% confidence interval 12.7% to 19.6%; p < 0.0001) and 14.4% more than attention control did (95% confidence interval 10.8% to 18.1%). Most of this effect was maintained at 12 months (n = 219); the mean differences in change in word-finding score were 12.7% (95% confidence interval 8.7% to 16.7%) higher in the computerised speech and language therapy group (n = 74) than in the usual-care group (n = 84) and 9.3% (95% confidence interval 4.8% to 13.7%) higher in the computerised speech and language therapy group than in the attention control group (n = 61). Computerised speech and language therapy did not show significant improvements on the Therapy Outcome Measures or Communication Outcomes After Stroke scale compared with usual care or attention control. Primary cost-effectiveness analysis estimated an incremental cost per participant of £732.73 (95% credible interval £674.23 to £798.05). The incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain was 0.017 for computerised speech and language therapy compared with usual care, but its direction was uncertain (95% credible interval -0.05 to 0.10), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £42,686 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For mild and moderate word-finding difficulty subgroups, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £22,371 and £28,898 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, for computerised speech and language therapy compared with usual care.

LIMITATIONS

This trial excluded non-English-language speakers, the accessible EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, was not validated and the measurement of attention control fidelity was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Computerised speech and language therapy enabled additional self-managed speech and language therapy, contributing to significant improvement in finding personally relevant words (as specifically targeted by computerised speech and language therapy) long term post stroke. Gains did not lead to improvements in conversation or quality of life. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain owing to uncertainty around the quality-adjusted life-year gain, but computerised speech and language therapy may be more cost-effective for participants with mild and moderate word-finding difficulties. Exploring ways of helping people with aphasia to use new words in functional communication contexts is a priority.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68798818.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Tavistock Trust for Aphasia provided additional support to enable people in the control groups to experience the intervention after the trial had ended.

Plain language summary

Aphasia is a communication disorder that can be caused by a stroke. It affects a person’s understanding of spoken words and their talking, reading and writing abilities. Communication may improve months, or years, after a stroke with speech and language therapy. Many patients want more speech and language therapy than the NHS can provide. The Big CACTUS (clinical and cost-effectiveness of aphasia computer treatment versus usual stimulation or attention control long term post-stroke) trial evaluated the use of speech and language therapy software for people with aphasia to practise finding words independently at home on their own computer or one loaned by the NHS. People with aphasia who had had a stroke at least 4 months previously were randomly allocated to one of three groups: usual speech and language therapy caredaily use of computerised speech and language therapy for 6 months, tailored by a speech and language therapist and supported by a volunteer or speech and language therapy assistantdaily completion of puzzles and supportive telephone calls from a researcher to mimic the activity/attention the computerised speech and language therapy group received. All groups received usual speech and language therapy. A total of 278 people with aphasia took part in this trial, from 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. They had their strokes between 4 months and 36 years previously. Computerised speech and language therapy enabled more practice (28 hours on average) than usual speech and language therapy (3.8 hours). The computerised speech and language therapy group significantly improved their ability to say words they chose to practise compared with those in the usual speech and language therapy or puzzle book groups. Although computerised speech and language therapy can help people with aphasia to learn new words for years after stroke, no improvements in conversation or quality of life were seen. The cost-effectiveness for the NHS is still uncertain. However, our best estimate is that it is unlikely to be cost-effective for everyone with aphasia, but it may be cost-effective for people with mild and moderate word-finding difficulties. Next steps will focus on how to encourage use of new words in conversation to have an impact on quality of life.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Laska AC, Hellblom A, Murray V, Kahan T, Von Arbin M. Aphasia in acute stroke and relation to outcome. J Intern Med 2001;249:413–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00812.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00812.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. Kauhanen ML, Korpelainen JT, Hiltunen P, Määttä R, Mononen H, Brusin E, et al. Aphasia, depression, and non-verbal cognitive impairment in ischaemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis 2000;10:455–61. https://doi.org/10.1159/000016107 doi: 10.1159/000016107. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008;51:S225–39. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018) doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018). [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P, Campbell P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;6:CD000425. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Allen L, Mehta S, McClure JA, Teasell R. Therapeutic interventions for aphasia initiated more than six months post stroke: a review of the evidence. Top Stroke Rehabil 2012;19:523–35. https://doi.org/10.1310/tsr1906-523 doi: 10.1310/tsr1906-523. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Breitenstein C, Grewe T, Flöel A, Ziegler W, Springer L, Martus P, et al. Intensive speech and language therapy in patients with chronic aphasia after stroke: a randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, controlled trial in a health-care setting. Lancet 2017;389:1528–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30067-3 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30067-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Kennedy N. Results of NI RCSLT Survey of Communication Needs After Stroke. London: Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists; 2018. URL: www.rcslt.org/governments/ni_docs/nircsltsurveycommneeds2018 (accessed 18 June 2018).
  8. Bowen A, Hesketh A, Patchick E, Young A, Davies L, Vail A, et al. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and service users’ perceptions of early, well-resourced communication therapy following a stroke: a randomised controlled trial (the ACT NoW Study). Health Technol Assess 2012;16(26). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16260 doi: 10.3310/hta16260. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. David R, Enderby P, Bainton D. Treatment of acquired aphasia: speech therapists and volunteers compared. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1982;45:957–61. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.45.11.957 doi: 10.1136/jnnp.45.11.957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Cherney LR. Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia (ORLA): evaluating the efficacy of computer-delivered therapy in chronic nonfluent aphasia. Top Stroke Rehabil 2010;17:423–31. https://doi.org/10.1310/tsr1706-423 doi: 10.1310/tsr1706-423. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Corwin M, Wells M, Koul R, Dembowski J. Computer-assisted anomia treatment for persons with chronic aphasia: generalization to untrained words. J Med Speech Lang Pathol 2014;21:149–63.
  12. Kurland J, Baldwin K, Tauer C. Treatment-induced neuroplasticity following intensive naming therapy in a case of chronic Wernicke’s aphasia. Aphasiology 2010;24:737–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030903524711 doi: 10.1080/02687030903524711. [DOI]
  13. Fink RB, Brecher A, Schwartz MF, Robey RR. A computer-implemented protocol for treatment of naming disorders: evaluation of clinician-guided and partially self-guided instruction. Aphasiology 2002;16:1061–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030244000400 doi: 10.1080/02687030244000400. [DOI]
  14. Mortley J, Wade J, Enderby P. Superhighway to promoting a client-therapist partnership? Using the internet to deliver word-retrieval computer therapy, monitored remotely with minimal speech and language therapy input. Aphasiology 2004;18:193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030344000553 doi: 10.1080/02687030344000553. [DOI]
  15. Van de Sandt-Koenderman WME. Aphasia rehabilitation and the role of computer technology: can we keep up with modern times? Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2011;13:21–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2010.502973 doi: 10.3109/17549507.2010.502973. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Stark BC, Warburton EA. Improved language in chronic aphasia after self-delivered iPad speech therapy. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2018;28:818–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2016.1146150 doi: 10.1080/09602011.2016.1146150. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Zheng C, Lynch L, Taylor N. Effect of computer therapy in aphasia: a systematic review. Aphasiology 2016;30:211–44.
  18. Latimer NR, Dixon S, Palmer R. Cost-utility of self-managed computer therapy for people with aphasia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013;29:402–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462313000421 doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000421. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Palmer R, Mortley J. How I offer impairment therapy (2): from idealism to realism, step by step. Speech & Language Therapy in Practice 2011;Winter:29–32.
  20. Steps Consultancy Ltd. StepByStep© Software. URL: www.aphasia-software.com (accessed 18 June 2018).
  21. Palmer R, Enderby P, Cooper C, Latimer N, Julious S, Paterson G, et al. Computer therapy compared with usual care for people with long-standing aphasia poststroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Stroke 2012;43:1904–11. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.650671 doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.650671. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Palmer R, Enderby P, Paterson G. Using computers to enable self-management of aphasia therapy exercises for word finding: the patient and carer perspective. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2013;48:508–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12024 doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. World Health Organization (WHO). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: WHO; 2001. URL: www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/ (accessed 15 February 2019).
  24. Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, Le Dorze G, Breitenstein C, Hilari K, et al. A core outcome set for aphasia treatment research: the ROMA consensus statement. Int J Stroke 2019;14:180–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493018806200 doi: 10.1177/1747493018806200. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, CONSORT NPT Group. CONSORT statement for randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatments: a 2017 update and a CONSORT extension for nonpharmacologic trial abstracts. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:40–7. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-0046 doi: 10.7326/M17-0046. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008;337:a2390. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2390 doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, O’Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, Moher D, CONSORT Group. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:781–8. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00009 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Swinburn K, Porter G, Howard D. Comprehensive Aphasia Test. Hove: Psychology Press; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1037/t13733-000 doi: 10.1037/t13733-000. [DOI]
  31. Jayes M, Palmer R. Consent Support Tool: Including People with Communication Disorders in Health Research Studies. Macclesfield: Napier Hill Press; 2016.
  32. Snell C, Sage K, Lambon Ralph MA. How many words should we provide in anomia therapy? A meta-analysis and a case series study. Aphasiology 2010;24:1064–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030903372632 doi: 10.1080/02687030903372632. [DOI]
  33. Enderby P, John A, Petheram B. Therapy Outcome Measures for Rehabilitation Professionals: Speech and Language Therapy, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy. 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
  34. Long A, Hesketh A, Paszek G, Booth M, Bowen A. Development of a reliable self-report outcome measure for pragmatic trials of communication therapy following stroke: the Communication Outcome after Stroke (COAST) scale. Clin Rehabil 2008;22:1083–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215508090091 doi: 10.1177/0269215508090091. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Julious S. Letter to the editors. Biometrics 2004;60:284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.171_1.x doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.171_1.x. [DOI]
  36. Julious SA, Owen RJ. Sample size calculations for clinical studies allowing for uncertainty about the variance. Pharm Stat 2006;5:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.197 doi: 10.1002/pst.197. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Group ICoHEEW. Statistical principles for clinical trials: ICH harmonized tripartite guideline. Stat Med 1999;18:1905–42. [PubMed]
  38. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software. In: Special Edition Release. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2017.
  39. van Buuren S, Oudshoorn CGM. Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations: MICE V1.0 User’s Manual. Leiden: TNO; 2000.
  40. van Buuren S. Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res 2007;16:219–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280206074463 doi: 10.1177/0962280206074463. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067 doi: 10.1002/sim.4067. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Colantuoni E, Scharfstein DO, Wang C, Hashem MD, Leroux A, Needham DM, Girard TD. Statistical methods to compare functional outcomes in randomized controlled trials with high mortality. BMJ 2018;360:j5748. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5748 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j5748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Hochberg Y, Tamhane A. Designing Experiments for Multiple Comparisons. In Hochberg Y, Tamhane AC, editors. Multiple Comparison Procedures. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1987. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316672 doi: 10.1002/9780470316672. [DOI]
  44. Bowen A, Hesketh A, Long A, Patchick E. Scoring Instructions for COAST and CaCOAST. 2009. URL: www.click2go.umip.com/i/coa/coast.html (accessed 8 August 2016).
  45. Long A, Hesketh A, Bowen A, ACT NoW Research Study. Communication outcome after stroke: a new measure of the carer’s perspective. Clin Rehabil 2009;23:846–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215509336055 doi: 10.1177/0269215509336055. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Van Reenen M, Janssen B. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic Information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L Instrument. 2015. URL: https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EQ-5D-5L_UserGuide_2015.pdf (accessed 15 February 2017).
  47. Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: a EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ 2018;27:7–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564 doi: 10.1002/hec.3564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Position Statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. London: NICE; 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisal-guidance/eq5d5l_nice_position_statement.pdf (accessed 18 June 2018).
  49. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. Palmer R, Dimairo M, Cooper C, Enderby P, Brady M, Bowen A, et al. Self-managed, computerised speech and language therapy for patients with chronic aphasia post-stroke compared with usual care or attention control (Big CACTUS): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2019;18:821–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30192-9 doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30192-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  51. Best W, Greenwood A, Grassly J, Herbert R, Hickin J, Howard D. Aphasia rehabilitation: does generalisation from anomia therapy occur and is it predictable? A case series study. Cortex 2013;49:2345–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.01.005 doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2013.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. Process and Methods [PMG9]. London: NICE; 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/chapter/foreword (accessed 18 June 2018). [PubMed]
  53. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Methods in health service research: handling uncertainty in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. BMJ 1999;319:635. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7210.635 doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7210.635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, Rovira J. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Practice, problems, and potential. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993;9:26–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300003007 doi: 10.1017/s0266462300003007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944 doi: 10.1002/hec.944. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ 2004;13:461–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.843 doi: 10.1002/hec.843. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Brønnum-Hansen H, Davidsen M, Thorvaldsen P, Danish MONICA Study Group. Long-term survival and causes of death after stroke. Stroke 2001;32:2131–6. https://doi.org/10.1161/hs0901.094253 doi: 10.1161/hs0901.094253. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Office for National Statistics (ONS). National Life Tables, UK: 2014 to 2016. Newport: ONS; 2017. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2014to2016 (accessed 18 June 2018).
  59. Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health 2010;13:509–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Whitehurst DG, Latimer NR, Kagan A, Palmer R, Simmons-Mackie N, Hoch JS. Preference-based health-related quality of life in the context of aphasia: a research synthesis. Aphasiology 2015;29:763–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2014.985581 doi: 10.1080/02687038.2014.985581. [DOI]
  61. Whitehurst DGT, Latimer NR, Kagan A, Palmer R, Simmons-Mackie N, Victor JC, Hoch JS. Developing accessible, pictorial versions of health-related quality-of-life instruments suitable for economic evaluation: a report of preliminary studies conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom. Pharmacoecon Open 2018;2:225–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-018-0083-2 doi: 10.1007/s41669-018-0083-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  62. Al-Janabi H, van Exel J, Brouwer W, Coast J. A framework for including family health spillovers in economic evaluation. Med Decis Making 2016;36:176–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15605094 doi: 10.1177/0272989X15605094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  63. Hernandez-Alava M, Wailoo A, Pudney S. Methods for Mapping Between the EQ-5D-5L and the 3L for Technology Appraisal. London: NICE Decision Support Unit; 2017. URL: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Mapping-5L-to-3L-DSU-report.pdf (accessed 18 June 2018).
  64. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH, Shuaib A, Carriere KC, Nasser AM. Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Stroke 2004;35:607–12. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000110984.91157.BD doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000110984.91157.BD. [DOI] [PubMed]
  65. Hernandez M, Pudney S. EQ5DMAP: a command for mapping between EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. Stata J 2017;18:395–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801800207 doi: 10.1177/1536867X1801800207. [DOI]
  66. Morris TP, White IR, Royston P. Tuning multiple imputation by predictive mean matching and local residual draws. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:75. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-75 doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  67. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
  68. Curtis LA, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2017.
  69. GOV.UK. Expenses and Benefits: Business Travel Mileage for Employees’ Own Vehicles. 2018. URL: www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-business-travel-mileage/rules-for-tax (accessed 18 June 2018).
  70. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 2002;360:711–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09832-X doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09832-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Griffin S, Welton NJ, Claxton K. Exploring the research decision space: the expected value of information for sequential research designs. Med Decis Making 2010;30:155–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09344746 doi: 10.1177/0272989X09344746. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Strong M, Oakley JE, Brennan A. Estimating multiparameter partial expected value of perfect information from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample: a nonparametric regression approach. Med Decis Making 2014;34:311–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13505910 doi: 10.1177/0272989X13505910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  73. Zellner A, Huang DS. Further properties of efficient estimators for seemingly unrelated regression equations. Int Econ Rev 1962;3:300–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525396 doi: 10.2307/2525396. [DOI]
  74. Alshreef A, Wailoo AJ, Brown SR, Tiernan JP, Watson AJM, Biggs K, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the treatment of grade II-III haemorrhoids: analysis using evidence from the HubBLe trial. Pharmacoecon Open 2017;1:175–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0023-6 doi: 10.1007/s41669-017-0023-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  75. Thomas KS, Bradshaw LE, Sach TH, Batchelor JM, Lawton S, Harrison EF, et al. Silk garments plus standard care compared with standard care for treating eczema in children: A randomised, controlled, observer-blind, pragmatic trial (CLOTHES Trial). PLOS Med 2017;14:e1002280. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002280 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  76. Wolfe CD, Crichton SL, Heuschmann PU, McKevitt CJ, Toschke AM, Grieve AP, Rudd AG. Estimates of outcomes up to ten years after stroke: analysis from the prospective South London Stroke Register. PLOS Med 2011;8:e1001033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001033 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  77. Ali M on behalf of the RELEASE collaboration. Establishing an International Database of 5932 Individual Participant’s Data to Inform the RELEASE Project. Paper presented at the 4th European Stroke Organisation Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2018.
  78. Gaynor EJ, Geoghegan SE, O’Neill D. Ageism in stroke rehabilitation studies. Age Ageing 2014;43:429–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu026 doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu026. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;5:CD000425. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Nickels L. Therapy for naming disorders: revisiting, revising, and reviewing. Aphasiology 2002;16:935–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030244000563 doi: 10.1080/02687030244000563. [DOI]
  81. Abel S, Schultz A, Radermacher I, Willmes K, Huber W. Decreasing and increasing cues in naming therapy for aphasia. Aphasiology 2005;19:831–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030500268902 doi: 10.1080/02687030500268902. [DOI]
  82. Fillingham JK, Sage K, Lambon Ralph MA. The treatment of anomia using errorless learning. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2006;16:129–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010443000254 doi: 10.1080/09602010443000254. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Laganaro M, Di Pietro M, Schnider A. Computerised treatment of anomia in chronic and acute aphasia: an exploratory study. Aphasiology 2003;17:709–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030344000193 doi: 10.1080/02687030344000193. [DOI]
  84. Wisenburn B, Mahoney K. A meta-analysis of word-finding treatments for aphasia. Aphasiology 2009;23:1338–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030902732745 doi: 10.1080/02687030902732745. [DOI]
  85. Best W, Grassly J, Greenwood A, Herbert R, Hickin J, Howard D. A controlled study of changes in conversation following aphasia therapy for anomia. Disabil Rehabil 2011;33:229–42. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.534230 doi: 10.3109/09638288.2010.534230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. Schwartz CE, Andresen EM, Nosek MA, Krahn GL, RRTC Expert Panel on Health Status Measurement. Response shift theory: important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:529–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.12.032 doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.12.032. [DOI] [PubMed]
  87. Wailoo A, Hernandez-Alava M, Grimm S, Pudney S, Gomes M, Sadique Z, et al. Comparing the EQ-5D-3L and 5L Versions. What are the Implications for Cost Effectiveness Estimates? Sheffield: Decision Support Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; 2017. URL: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/DSU_3L-to-5L-FINAL.pdf (accessed 15 April 2020).
  88. McGill K, Brady M, Godwin J, Sackley C. Efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials: secondary analysis of recruitment data. Paper presented at the International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference, Liverpool, UK, 7–10 May 2017, abstract no. 86.
  89. Brady MC, Godwin J, Kelly H, Enderby P, Elders A, Campbell P. Attention control comparisons with SLT for people with aphasia following stroke: methodological concerns raised following a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2018;32:1383–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518780487 doi: 10.1177/0269215518780487. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, Le Dorze G. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health to identify outcome domains for a core outcome set for aphasia: a comparison of stakeholder perspectives. Disabil Rehabil 2019;41:564–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1400593 doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1400593. [DOI] [PubMed]
  91. Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. RCSLT Guidance to Support Members to Adhere to the HCPC Standards. London: Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists; 2016. URL: www.rcslt.org/cq_live/communication/rcslt_guidance/rcslt_guidance (accessed 26 June 2018).
  92. John A. Therapy outcome measures: where are we now? Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2011;13:36–42. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2010.497562 doi: 10.3109/17549507.2010.497562. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Palmer R, Cooper C, Enderby P, Brady M, Julious S, Bowen A, Latimer N. Clinical and cost effectiveness of computer treatment for aphasia post stroke (Big CACTUS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-014-0527-7 doi: 10.1186/s13063-014-0527-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  94. Stroke Association. Aphasia and its Effects. Stroke Association. URL: www.stroke.org.uk/what-is-stroke/what-is-aphasia/aphasia-and-its-effects (accessed 26 April 2018).
  95. Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. RCSLT Resource Manual for Commissioning and Planning Services for SLCN: Aphasia. Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists; 2009. URL: www.rcslt.org/speech_and_language_therapy/commissioning/aphasia_plus_intro (accessed 26 April 2018).

RESOURCES