The National Center for Evidence-Based Practice
in Communication Disorders
Home      Aphasia-Service-Delivery-Bilingual-Considerations

Aphasia
Service Delivery

Bilingual Considerations

 


 

External Scientific Evidence

  

Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines

Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
 
Clinical Guidelines for Acute Stroke Management 2010
National Stroke Foundation (2010).
Melbourne (Australia): National Stroke Foundation, 167 pages.
Added: May 2012
 
Description

This guideline provides recommendations for the assessment and management of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) in adults. These guidelines are primarily intended to assist health care workers in improving quality and effectiveness of service. Of particular interest to speech-language pathologists is chapter six which focuses on rehabilitation management for aphasia, dysphagia, dysarthria, apraxia and cognitive-communication deficits. Recommendations are graded A, B, C, D or "Good Practice Point" based on the following criteria:  

  • Grade A: Evidence can be trusted to guide practice.
  • Grade B: Evidence can be used to guide practice in most situations.
  • Grade C: Evidence provides some support, but care should be taken in application.
  • Grade D: Evidence is weak and should be applied cautiously.
  • Good Practice Point: Evidence based on clinical experience and expert opinion.  
Recommendations
Interpreters should be considered when providing treatment to individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Good Practice Point)
 
 
 
 
New Zealand Ministry of Health
 
New Zealand Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management 2010
Stroke Foundation of New Zealand and New Zealand Guidelines Group (2010).
Wellington (New Zealand): Stroke Foundation of New Zealand, 347 pages
Added: May 2012 
 
Description

This guideline provides recommendations for the management of individuals recovering from stroke and transient ischemic attacks. The target audience of the guideline is all healthcare professionals providing services to persons with stroke and their family in the New Zealand context. Of particular interest to speech-language pathologists are the sections discussing communication (aphasia, apraxia, dysarthria), cognition and swallowing disorders. Levels of evidence recommendations are graded as A, B, C, D or "Good Practice Points" and defined as follows:

  • Level A: Body of evidence can be trusted to guide practice.
  • Level B: Body of evidence can be trusted to guide practice in most situations.
  • Level C: Body of evidence provides some support for recommendation(s) but care should be taken in its application.
  • Level D: Body of evidence is weak and recommendation must be applied with caution.
  • Good Practice Point: Recommended best practice based on clinical experience and expert opinion
Recommendations
Interpreters should be considered for individuals with aphasia with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Good Practice Point)
 
 
 
 
 

Evidence-Based Systematic Reviews

Cross-Language Generalization Following Treatment in Bilingual Speakers with Aphasia: A Review
Kohnert, K. (2009).
Semin Speech Lang, 30(3), 174-86.
Added: May 2012
 
Description
This is a review of peer-reviewed, empirical reports or investigations pertaining to cross-language transfer in bilingual adults with aphasia
 
Conclusions
  • Based on limited research, the authors conclude that cross-language generalization of treatment gains produced mixed results for bilingual individuals receiving aphasia treatment provided in the secondary language.
  • The authors indicate that some studies reported cross-language generalization under certain conditions, while others reported improvement in treated language only. Further research is warranted
 
 
 
Effect of Treatment for Bilingual Individuals with Aphasia: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
Faroqi-Shah, Y., Frymark, T., et al. (2010).
Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23(4), 319-341
.
 
This review meets the criteria for a high-quality evidence-based systematic review.
Added: May 2012 
 
Description
This review examines the impact of providing treatment in the primary or secondary language for bilingual individuals with neurologically-induced aphasia
 
Conclusions
  • Modest evidence from exploratory studies suggests that aphasia treatment provided in the secondary language (L2) yields positive results. Bilingual individuals with aphasia receiving unilingual services in L2 demonstrated improved receptive and expressive language outcomes. 
  • Mixed results were found for cross-linguistic transfer to untreated language
 
 
 
 

Clinical Expertise/Expert Opinion

 
Consensus Guidelines  
No consensus guidelines were found. 
 
 
 
 

Client/Patient/Caregiver Perspectives

 
No information was found pertaining to client/patient/caregiver perspectives.
 
 
 
Use the image below to navigate to other sections of the Aphasia evidence map.