Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTarrant, M
dc.contributor.authorCarter, M
dc.contributor.authorDean, SG
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, RS
dc.contributor.authorWarren, FC
dc.contributor.authorSpencer, A
dc.contributor.authorAdamson, J
dc.contributor.authorLanda, P
dc.contributor.authorCode, C
dc.contributor.authorBackhouse, A
dc.contributor.authorLamont, RA
dc.contributor.authorCalitri, R
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-02T16:26:46Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-13
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) for the ‘Singing groups for People with Aphasia’ (SPA) intervention to assess: (1) the acceptability and feasibility of participant recruitment, randomisation and allocation concealment; (2) retention rates; (3) variance of continuous outcome measures; (4) outcome measure completion and participant burden; (5) fidelity of intervention delivery; (6) SPA intervention costs; (7) acceptability and feasibility of trial and intervention to participants and others involved. Design: A two-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled external pilot trial with parallel mixed methods process evaluation and economic evaluation. Setting: Three community-based cohorts in the South-West of England. Participants: Eligible participants with post-stroke aphasia were randomised 1:1 to SPA or control. Intervention: The manualised SPA intervention was delivered over 10 weekly singing group sessions, led by a music facilitator and assisted by an individual with post-stroke aphasia. The intervention was developed using the Information-Motivation-Behavioural skills model of behaviour change and targeted psychosocial outcomes. Control and intervention participants all received an aphasia information resource pack. Outcome measures: Collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months post-randomisation, candidate primary outcomes were measured (well-being, quality of life and social participation) as well as additional clinical outcomes. Feasibility, acceptability and process outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, and measurement burden; and trial experiences were explored in qualitative interviews. Results: Of 87 individuals screened, 42 participants were recruited and 41 randomised (SPA=20, Control=21); 36 participants (SPA=17, Control=19) completed 3-month follow-up, 34 (SPA=18, Control=16) completed 6-month follow-up. Recruitment and retention (83%) were acceptable for a definitive RCT, and participants did not find the study requirements burdensome. High fidelity of the intervention delivery was shown by high attendance rates and facilitator adherence to the manual, and participants found SPA acceptable. Sample size estimates for a definitive RCT and primary/secondary outcomes were identified. Conclusions: The SPA pilot RCT fulfilled its objectives, and demonstrated that a definitive RCT of the intervention would be both feasible and acceptable.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipStroke Associationen_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 11, article e040544en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040544
dc.identifier.grantnumberQQ12 / TSA 2016/14en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/123870
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_GB
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
dc.titleSinging for people with aphasia (SPA): Results of a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial of a group singing intervention investigating acceptability and feasibilityen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2020-12-02T16:26:46Z
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMJ Openen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-12-02
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-12-02
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2020-12-02T15:04:40Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2021-01-19T15:07:14Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.