What is it about?

Aphasia is a language disorder that can impact speaking, listening, reading, and/or writing, but does not impact intelligence. This study compared three types of speech therapy for people with aphasia after stroke: an intensive 4-week program called an intensive comprehensive aphasia program (ICAP), a shorter 2-week modified version (mICAP), and usual care spread over 8 weeks. Eighteen participants with aphasia completed their assigned program. Those in the ICAP and mICAP groups generally showed more positive changes in language, communication, and well-being than those in usual care.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Aphasia affects up to 40% of stroke survivors, often leaving lasting communication challenges. Usual care is typically short and low-intensity, limiting recovery for many people. Intensive programs such as ICAPs and mICAPs are designed to be more holistic, targeting language, communication, and quality of life. This study is one of the first to directly compare ICAP, mICAP, and usual care, giving important early evidence about which approaches may best support people with aphasia. Clinicians can design or advocate for more intensive programs when possible. Patients and families can ask about options beyond standard therapy. Researchers can use feasibility data (high completion and adherence) to plan larger studies. Policy makers and insurers can consider evidence that intensive and modified programs may improve outcomes more than usual care. Work is also needed to reduce barriers such as cost, travel, and lack of insurance coverage so more people with aphasia can access these services.

Perspectives

This article includes data from my doctoral dissertation, which grew out of my desire to make rehabilitation more accessible and meaningful for people with aphasia and their families. I was deeply inspired by the participants, whose commitment and resilience were remarkable. I hope this article encourages researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to think creatively about how we deliver therapy, and to consider the real-world barriers that patients face in accessing care.

Jenna Griffin Musick
University of Montana

This pilot research helped my team and I to understand more about how we can design future studies that compare different service delivery models for aphasia rehabilitation. Ultimately, we hope to conduct a mult-site, international study that directly compares innovative, intensive models of aphasia treatment to aphasia treatment that is happening in "usual care". We would like to learn more about the effectiveness of different service delivery models as well as how all stakeholders view these different models of aphasia care.

Catherine Off
University of Montana

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Comparing Patient Outcomes in Aphasia Rehabilitation: Intensive Comprehensive, Modified Intensive Comprehensive, and Usual Care Models, Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, July 2025, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA),
DOI: 10.1044/2025_jslhr-24-00806.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page