Approaches to Training Speech-Language Pathologists to Work With People With Aphasia: A Systematic Review.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Approaches to Training Speech-Language Pathologists to Work With People With Aphasia: A Systematic Review.
Authors:	Musaji, Imran¹ imran.musaji@wichita.edu, O’Bryan, Erin L.¹, Bowen, Aaron²
Source:	American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. May2025, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p1454-1492. 39p.
Subject Terms:	Aphasia, Teaching methods, *ERIC (Information retrieval system), CINAHL database, Systematic reviews, MEDLINE, Online information services, Psychology information storage & retrieval systems
Abstract:	Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the published research on training approaches for preparing current and future speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to work effectively with people with aphasia (PWA). The review addresses key questions regarding the described training approaches, their key features, research quality, and efficacy. Method: The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024453742). The literature search spanned nine databases. Eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed publications in English that reported on training programs involving current or future SLPs working with PWA. Studies were assessed for research quality using the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s (ASHA’s) levels of evidence framework. Narrative synthesis was used to identify key features in the training programs. Results: A total of 920 citations were identified, with 50 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for analysis. Included studies represented a broad range of training approaches, research designs, and research quality. The 50 studies fell into ASHA levels of evidence Ib, IIa, IIb, III, and IV. Statistical meta-analysis was not possible because of variability in research design and outcome measures, but the studies revealed statistically significant findings relevant to the question of what makes training effective for preparing clinicians to work with people with aphasia. Conclusions: The current literature related to training of clinicians to work with PWA is heterogeneous in approach, outcome metrics, and methodological quality. There is evidence supporting several recommendations for training clinicians including integrating direct interactions with PWA during training, combining didactic and experiential learning, and incorporating reflective practices. Overall, the review highlights the need for well-described evidence-based training standards for speech-language pathology students working with PWA. Future research should aim to develop and validate comprehensive training guidelines to improve care quality for individuals with aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the published research on training approaches for preparing current and future speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to work effectively with people with aphasia (PWA). The review addresses key questions regarding the described training approaches, their key features, research quality, and efficacy. Method: The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024453742). The literature search spanned nine databases. Eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed publications in English that reported on training programs involving current or future SLPs working with PWA. Studies were assessed for research quality using the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s (ASHA’s) levels of evidence framework. Narrative synthesis was used to identify key features in the training programs. Results: A total of 920 citations were identified, with 50 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for analysis. Included studies represented a broad range of training approaches, research designs, and research quality. The 50 studies fell into ASHA levels of evidence Ib, IIa, IIb, III, and IV. Statistical meta-analysis was not possible because of variability in research design and outcome measures, but the studies revealed statistically significant findings relevant to the question of what makes training effective for preparing clinicians to work with people with aphasia. Conclusions: The current literature related to training of clinicians to work with PWA is heterogeneous in approach, outcome metrics, and methodological quality. There is evidence supporting several recommendations for training clinicians including integrating direct interactions with PWA during training, combining didactic and experiential learning, and incorporating reflective practices. Overall, the review highlights the need for well-described evidence-based training standards for speech-language pathology students working with PWA. Future research should aim to develop and validate comprehensive training guidelines to improve care quality for individuals with aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	10580360
DOI:	10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00350