Recent research has emphasized the need for intensive aphasia treatment in order to make the long-term neuroplastic changes associated with recovery and rehabilitation following a stroke. Furthermore, studies have indicated that intensive aphasia treatment is more efficacious than less intensive treatment. Rather than being influenced by such evidence, the reality is that public and private payers are drastically reducing services to persons with aphasia (PWA). Legislation has seriously curtailed the amount of treatment a PWA may receive after hospitalization. Often patients are eligible for only a limited number of treatment sessions over a limited period of time. In some cases, they may not receive any treatment for their communication disorder following their acute hospitalization. Reduced resources (e.g. transportation difficulties, therapist shortages in rural areas) also may severely limit available services.
The Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Program (ICAP) may be a creative, cost-effective and sustainable option for delivering meaningful and necessary aphasia services. Despite the growing numbers of ICAPs, there is little evidence about their efficacy, effectiveness, or cost-effectiveness. All stakeholders need this evidence. Funding agencies require evidence to make decisions about their investments in aphasia rehabilitation. People with aphasia and their families should have evidence prior to investing their money and time into such programs, and speech and language pathologists have an ethical obligation to provide evidence-based practices.
Based on evidence regarding treatment intensity that has translated principles of neuroplasticity from animal models to stroke recovery, the investigators hypothesize that 60 hours of comprehensive treatment will result in significant improvements in (a) performance-based, (b) client-reported, and (c) surrogate-reported assessments of communication skills, community participation, and health-related quality of life. They also hypothesize that when 60 hours of comprehensive treatment is provided intensively over 3 weeks, the magnitude and rate of improvement as well as the extent to which improvements are maintained will be greater than when the 60 hours of comprehensive treatment is distributed over 15 weeks. Because the investigators hypothesize that the magnitude and rate of improvement will be greater with the intensive ICAP than with the distributed ICAP, they further hypothesize that the intensive ICAP will be more cost-effective than the distributed ICAP.
