Constraint-induced aphasia therapy (CIAT) has proven effective in stroke patients. It has remained unclear, however, whether intensity of therapy or constraint is the relevant factor. This study will give an answer to this question to improve speech and language therapy.
Although there is clear evidence that aphasia therapy is effective, questions remain as to the intensity of administered therapy, the preferred therapeutic approach and its initiation with regard to stroke onset. CIAT is a a high intense group therapy administered over 2 weeks. Additionally, patients have to communicate solely in spoken words or sentences (constraint). This study compares CIAT with an approach of the same intensity without constraints and a less intense house-typical therapeutic approach.
- Control group Other
Other Names: conventional training Intervention Desc: This is the control group with 14 h treatment over 10 workdays. ARM 1: Kind: Experimental Label: Control group Description: Patients received a standard, house-typical aphasia therapy in single and group therapy sessions
- CIAT-group Other
Intervention Desc: Examine the efficacy of CIAT (30 h over 10 workdays) versus Control-group and communication treatment group. ARM 1: Kind: Experimental Label: CIAT-group Description: Patients received constraint-induced aphasia therapy.
- Communication treatment group (CTG) Other
Intervention Desc: Examine the efficacy of CTG (30h over 10 wokrdays) versus CIAT-group and control group ARM 1: Kind: Experimental Label: communication treatment group (CTG) Description: Patients received aphasia group therapy without constraints
- Allocation: Randomized
- Masking: Single Blind (Outcomes Assessor)
- Purpose: Treatment
- Endpoint: Efficacy Study
- Intervention: Parallel Assignment
|Type||Measure||Time Frame||Safety Issue|
|Primary||Change of aphasia by Aachener Aphasia Test (AAT)||pretreatment and within 24 h post intervention||No|
|Secondary||Change of Communication Activity Log (CAL)||pretreatment and within 24 h post intervention||No|