Aphasia Access Conversations

by Aphasia Access

4.8(23 reviews)

111 episodes

Updated Weekly

Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇳🇿

Overview

Aphasia Access Conversations brings you the latest aphasia resources, tips, and a-ha moments from Life Participation professionals who deliver way more than stroke and aphasia facts. Topics include aphasia group treatment ideas, communication access strategies, plus ways to grow awareness and funds for your group aphasia therapy program. This podcast is produced by Aphasia Access. Search our courses, resources, and events by keywords at https://bit.ly/aphaccacademy.

Language

🇺🇲

Publishing Since

1/11/2018

Visit Website View on Apple Podcasts RSS Feed

Reach out to this podcast

Get in touch with the podcast creators

Email Addresses

1 available

Phone Numbers

0 available

Get Full Contact Details

Recent Episodes

April 23, 2025

Episode 126: Collaborative Referencing with Dr. Suma Devanga

Lyssa Rome is a speech-language pathologist in the San Francisco Bay Area. She is on staff at the Aphasia Center of California, where she facilitates groups for people with aphasia and their care partners. She owns an LPAA-focused private practice and specializes in working with people with aphasia, dysarthria, and other neurogenic conditions. She has worked in acute hospital, skilled nursing, and continuum of care settings. Prior to becoming an SLP, Lyssa was a public radio journalist, editor, and podcast producer. In this episode, Lyssa Rome interviews Dr. Suma Devanga about collaborative referencing, gesture, and building rich communicative environments for people with aphasia. Guest info Dr. Suma Devanga is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, where she also serves as the director of the Aphasia Research Lab. She completed her PhD in Speech and Hearing science from the University of Illinois. Urbana Champaign in 2017. Dr. Devanga is interested in studying aphasia interventions and their impacts on people's everyday communication. Her recent work includes investigating a novel treatment called the Collaborative Referencing Intervention for Individuals with aphasia, using discourse analysis methods and patient reported outcome measures, studying group-based treatments for aphasia, and studying the use of gestures in aphasia. Additionally, she is involved in teaching courses on aphasia and cognitive communication disorders to graduate SLP students at Rush. She also provides direct patient care and graduate clinical supervision at Rush outpatient clinics. Listener Take-aways In today’s episode you will: <ul class="ul1"> <li class="li9">Understand the role of collaborative referencing in everyday communication.</li> <li class="li9">Learn about Collaborative Referencing Intervention.</li> <li class="li9">Describe how speech-language pathologists can create rich communicative environments.</li> </ul> Edited transcript Lyssa Rome Welcome to the Aphasia Access Aphasia Conversations Podcast. I'm Lyssa Rome. I'm a speech language pathologist on staff at the Aphasia Center of California, and I see clients with aphasia and other neurogenic communication disorders in my LPAA-focused private practice. I'm also a member of the Aphasia Access podcast Working Group. Aphasia Access strives to provide members with information, inspiration, and ideas that support their aphasia care through a variety of educational materials and resources. I'm today's host for an episode that will feature Dr. Suma Devanga, who is selected as a 2024 Tavistock Trust for Aphasia Distinguished Scholar, USA and Canada. In this episode, we'll be discussing Dr. Devanga’s research on collaborative referencing, gesture, and building rich communicative environments for people with aphasia. Suma Devanga is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, where she also serves as the director of the Aphasia Research Lab. She completed her PhD in Speech and Hearing science from the University of Illinois. Urbana Champaign in 2017. Dr. Devanga is interested in studying aphasia interventions and their impacts on people's everyday communication. Her recent work includes investigating a novel treatment called the Collaborative Referencing Intervention for Individuals with aphasia, using discourse analysis methods and patient reported outcome measures, studying group-based treatments for aphasia, and studying the use of gestures in aphasia. Additionally, she is involved in teaching courses on aphasia and cognitive communication disorders to graduate SLP students at Rush. She also provides direct patient care and graduate clinical supervision at Rush outpatient clinics. Suma Devanga, thank you so much for joining us today. I'm really happy to be talking with you. Suma Devanga Thank you, Lyssa, thank you for having me. And I would also like to thank Aphasia Access for this wonderful opportunity, and the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia and the Duchess of Bedford for recognizing my research through the Distinguished Scholar Award. Lyssa Rome So I wanted to start by asking you how you became interested in aphasia treatment. Suma Devanga I became interested in aphasia during my undergraduate and graduate programs, which was in speech language pathology in Mysore in India. I was really drawn to this population because of how severe the consequences were for these individuals and their families after the onset of aphasia. So I met hundreds of patients and families with aphasia who were really devastated by this sudden condition, and they were typically left with no job and little means to communicate with family and friends. So as a student clinician, I was very, very motivated to help these individuals in therapy, but when I started implementing the treatment methods that I had learned, what I discovered was that my patients were showing improvements on the tasks that we worked on in therapy. Their scores on clinical tasks also were improving, but none of that really mattered to them. What they really wanted was to be able to easily communicate with family, but they continued to struggle on that, and none of the cutting-edge treatment methods that I learned from this highly reputable program in India were impacting my patients’ lives. So I really felt lost, and that is when I knew that I wanted to do a PhD and study this topic more closely, and I was drawn to Dr. Julie Hengst’s work, which looked at the bigger picture in aphasia. She used novel theoretical frameworks and used discourse analysis methods for tracking patient performance, as opposed to clinical tests. So I applied to the University of Illinois PhD program, and I'm so glad that she took me on as her doctoral student. And so that is how I ended up moving from India to the US and started my work in aphasia. Lyssa Rome I think that a lot of us can probably relate to what you're describing—that just that feeling of frustration when a patient might improve on some sort of clinical tasks, but still says this is not helping me in my life, and I know that for me, and I think for others, that is what has drawn us to the LPAA. I wanted to sort of dive into your research by asking you a little bit more about rich communicative environments, and what you mean by that, and what you mean when you talk about or write about distributed communication frameworks. Suma Devanga So since I started my PhD, I have been interested in understanding how we can positively impact everyday communication for our patients with aphasia. As a doctoral student, I delved more deeply into the aphasia literature and realized that what I observed clinically with my patients in India was consistent with what was documented in the literature, and that was called the clinical-functional gap. And this really refers to the fact that we have many evidence-based aphasia treatments that do show improvements on clinical tasks or standardized tests, but there is very limited evidence on these treatments improving the functional use of language or the everyday communication, and this remains to be true even today. So I think it becomes pretty important to understand what we are dealing with, like what is everyday communication? And I think many aphasia treatments have been studying everyday communication or conversational interactions by decontextualizing them or reducing them into component parts, like single words or phrases, and then we work our way up to sentence structures. Right? So this approach has been criticized by some researchers like Clark, who is an experimental psychologist, and he called such tasks as in vacuo, meaning that they are not really capturing the complexity of conversational interactions. So basically, even though we are clinicians, our ultimate goal is improving everyday communication, which is rich and emergent and complex, we somehow seem to be using tasks that are simplified and that removes all of these complexities and focuses more on simple or specific linguistic structures. So to understand the complexities of everyday communication, we have shifted to the distributed communication framework, which really originates from the cultural historical activity theories and theories from linguistic anthropology. Dr. Julie Hengst actually proposed the distributed communication theory in her article in the Journal of Communication Disorders in 2015, which highlights that communication is not just an individual skill or a discrete concept, but it is rather distributed. And it is distributed in three ways: One is that it is distributed across various resources. We communicate using multiple resources, not just language. We sign, we use gestures, or facial expressions. We also interpret messages using such resources like dialects and eye gaze and posture, the social context, cultural backgrounds, the emotional states that we are in, and all of that matters. And we all know this, right? This is not new, and yet, we often give credit to language alone for communication, when in reality, we constantly use multiple resources. And the other key concept of distributed communication theory is that communication is embedded in socio- cultural activities. So depending on the activity, which can be a routine family dinnertime conversation or managing relationships with your co workers, the communicative resources that you use, their motives, and the way you would organize it, all of that would vary. And finally, communication is distributed across time. And by that we mean that people interpret and understand present interactions through the histories that they have experienced over time. For example, if you're at work and your manager says you might want to double check your reports before submitting them based on prior interactions with the manager and the histories you've shared with them, you could interpret that message either as a simple suggestion or that there is a lack of trust in your work. So all in all, communication, I think, is a joint activity, and I think we should view it as a joint activity, and it depends on people's ability to build common ground with one another and draw from that common ground to interpret each other's messages. Lyssa Rome I feel like that framework is really helpful, and it makes a lot of sense, especially as a way of thinking about the complexity of language and the complexity of what we're trying to do when we are taking a more top-down approach. So that's the distributed communication theory. And it sounds like the other framework that has really guided your research is rich communicative environments. And I'm wondering if you could say a little bit more about that. Suma Devanga Absolutely. So this work originates from about 80 years of research in neuroscience, where rodents and other animals with acquired brain injuries showed greater neuroplastic changes and improved functions when they were housed in complex environments. In fact, complex environments are considered to be the most well replicated approach to improve function in animal models of acquired brain injury. So Dr. Julie Hengst, Dr. Melissa Duff, and Dr. Theresa Jones translated these findings to support communication for humans with acquired brain injuries. And they called it the rich communicative environments. The main goal of this is to enrich the clinical environments. And how we achieve that is by ensuring that there is meaningful complexity in our clinical environments, and that you do that by ensuring that our patients, families, and clinicians use multimodal resources, and also to aim for having multiple communication partners within your sessions who can fluidly shift between various communicative roles, and to not just stay in that clinician role, for example. Another way to think about enriching clinical environments is to think about ensuring that there is voluntary engagement from our patients, and you do that by essentially designing personally meaningful activities, rather than focusing on rehearsing fixed linguistic form or having some predetermined goals. And the other piece of the enrichment is, how do we ensure there is a positive experiential quality for our patients within our sessions. And for this rather than using clinician-controlled activities with rigid interactional roles, providing opportunities for the patients to share stories and humor would really, you know, ensure that they are also engaging with the tasks with you and having some fun. So all of this put together would lead to a rich communicative environment. Lyssa Rome It sounds like what you're describing is the kind of speech therapy environment and relationship that is very much person-centered and focused on natural communication, or natural communicative contexts and the kinds of conversations that people have in their everyday lives, rather than more sort of strict speech therapy protocol that might have been more traditional. I also want to ask you to describe collaborative referencing and collaborative referencing intervention. Suma Devanga Yes, absolutely. So traditionally, our discipline has viewed word-finding or naming as a neurolinguistic process where you access semantic meanings from a lexicon, which you use to generate verbal references. And that theoretical account conceptualizes referencing as an isolated process, where one individual has the skill of retrieving target references from their stores of linguistic forms and meanings, right? So in contrast to that, the distributed communication perspective views referencing as a process where speakers’ meanings are constructed within each interaction, and that is based on the shared histories of experiences with specific communication partners and also depending on the social and physical contexts of the interaction as well. Now this process of collaborative referencing is something that we all do every single day. It is not just a part of our everyday communication, but without collaborative referencing, you cannot really have a conversation with anyone. You need to have some alignment, some common ground for communicating with others. This is a fundamental feature of human communication, and this is not new. You know, there is lots of work being done on this, even in childhood language literature as well. Collaborative referencing was formally studied by Clark, who is the experimental psychologist. And he studied this in healthy college students, and he used a barrier task experiment for it. So a pair of students sat across from each other with a full barrier that separated them so they could not see each other at all, and each student had a board that was numbered one through 12, and they were given matching sets of 12 pictures of abstract shapes called tangrams. One participant was assigned as the director, who arranged the cards on their playing board and described their locations to the other, who served as the matcher and matched the pictures to their locations on their own board. So the pair completed six trials with alternating turns, and they use the same cards with new locations for each trial. And what they found was that the pairs had to really collaborate with each other to get those descriptions correct so that they are placed correctly on the boards. So in the initial trials, the pairs had multiple turns of back and forth trying to describe these abstract shapes. For example, one of the pictures was initially described as “This picture that looks like an angel or something with its arms wide open.” And there had to be several clarifying questions from the partner, and then eventually, after playing with this picture several times, the player just had to say “It's the angel,” and the partner would be able to know which picture that was so as the pairs built their common ground, the collaborative effort, or the time taken to complete each trial, and the number of words they used and the number of turns they took to communicate about those pictures declined over time, and the labels itself, or the descriptions of pictures, also became more streamlined as the as time went by. So Hengst and colleagues wanted to study this experiment in aphasia, TBI, amnesia, and Alzheimer's disease as well. So they adapted this task to better serve this population and also to align with the distributed communication framework. And surprisingly, they found consistent results that despite aphasia or other neurological conditions, people were still able to successfully reference, decrease collaborative effort over time and even streamline their references. But more surprisingly, people were engaged with one another. They were having really rich conversations about these pictures. They were sharing jokes, and really seemed to be enjoying the task itself. So Hengst and colleagues realized that this has a lot of potential, and they redesigned the barrier task experiment as a clinical treatment using the principles of the distributed communication framework and the rich communicative environment. So that redesign included replacing the full barrier with a partial barrier to allow multimodal communication, and using personal photos of the patients instead of the abstract shapes to make it more engaging for the patients, and also asking participants to treat this as a friendly game and to have fun. So that is the referencing itself and the research on collaborative referencing, and that is how it was adapted as a treatment as well. And in order to help clinicians easily implement this treatment, I have used the RTSS framework, which is the rehabilitation treatment specification system, to explain how CRI works and how it can be implemented. And this is actually published, and it just came out in the most recent issue in the American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, which I'm happy to share. Lyssa Rome And we'll put that link into the show notes. Suma Devanga Perfect. So CRI is designed around meaningful activities like the game that authentically provides repeated opportunities for the client and the clinician to engage in the collaborative referencing process around targets that they really want to be talking about, things that are relevant to patients, everyday communication goals, it could be things, objects of interest, and not really specific words or referencing forms. So the implementation of the CRI involves three key ingredients. One is jointly developing the referencing targets and compiling the images so clinicians would sit down with the patients and the families to identify at least 30 targets that are meaningful and important to be included in the treatment. And we need two perspectives, or two views, or two pictures related to the same target that needs to be included in the treatment. So we will have 60 pictures overall. An example is two pictures from their wedding might be an important target for patients to be able to talk about. Two pictures from a Christmas party, you know, things like that. So this process of compilation of photos is also a part of the treatment itself, because it gives the patients an opportunity to engage with the targets. The second ingredient is engaging in the friendly gameplay itself. And the key really here is the gameplay and to treat it as a gameplay. And this includes 15 sessions with six trials in each session, where you, as the clinician and the client will both have matching sets of 12 pictures, and there is a low barrier in between, so you cannot see each other's boards, but you can still see the other person. So you will both take turns being the director and the matcher six times, and describe and match the pictures to their locations, and that is just the game. The only rule of the game is that you cannot look over the barrier. You are encouraged to talk as much as you like about the pictures. In fact, you are encouraged to talk a lot about the pictures and communicate in any way. The third ingredient is discussing and reflecting on referencing. And this happens at the end of each session where patients are asked to think back and reflect and say what the agreed upon label was for each card. And this, again, gives one more opportunity for the patients to engage with the target. The therapeutic mechanism, or the mechanism of action, as RTSS likes to call it, is the rich communicative environment itself, you know, and how complex the task is, and how meaningful and engaging the task has to be, as well as the repeated engagement in the gameplay, because we are doing this six times in each session, and we are repeatedly engaging with those targets when describing them and placing them. So what we are really targeting with CRI is collaborative referencing and again, this does not refer to the patient's abilities to access or retrieve those words from their stores. Instead, we are targeting people's joint efforts in communicating about these targets, their efforts in building situated common ground. That's what we are targeting. We are targeting their alignment with one another, and so that is how we define referencing. And again, we are targeting this, because that is how you communicate every day. Lyssa Rome That sounds like a really fascinating and very rich intervention. And I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit about the research that you've done on it so far. Suma Devanga Absolutely. So in terms of research on CRI thus far, we have completed phase one with small case studies that were all successful, and my PhD dissertation was the first phase two study, where we introduced an experimental control by using a multiple-probe, single-case experimental design on four people with aphasia, and we found significant results on naming. And since then, I have completed two replication studies in a total of nine participants with aphasia. And we have found consistent results on naming. In terms of impact on everyday interactions, we have found decreased trouble sources, or communicative breakdowns, you can call it, and also decreased repairs, both of which indicated improved communicative success within conversational interactions. So we are positive, and we plan to continue this research to study its efficacy within a clinical trial. Lyssa Rome That's very encouraging. So how can clinicians target collaborative referencing by creating a rich communicative environment? Suma Devanga Yeah, well, CRI is one approach that clinicians can use, and I'm happy to share the evidence we have this far, and there is more to come, hopefully soon, including some clinical implementation studies that clinicians can use. But there are many other ways of creating rich communicative environments and targeting referencing within clinical sessions. I think many skilled clinicians are already doing it in the form of relationship building, by listening closely to their patients, engaging with them in authentic conversations, and also during education and counseling sessions as well. In addition to that, I think group treatment for aphasia is another great opportunity for targeting collaborative referencing within a rich communicative environment. When I was a faculty at Western Michigan University, I was involved in their outpatient aphasia program, where they have aphasia groups, and patients got to select which groups they want to participate in. They had a cooking group, a music group, a technology group, and so on. And I'm guessing you do this too at the Aphasia Center of California. So these groups definitely create rich communicative environments, and people collaborate with each other and do a lot of referencing as well. So I think there is a lot that can be done if you understand the rich communicative environment piece. Lyssa Rome Absolutely. That really rings true to me. So often in these podcast interviews, we ask people about aha moments, and I'm wondering if you have one that you wanted to share with us. Suma Devanga Sure. So you know how I said that getting the pictures for the CRI is a joint activity? Patients typically select things that they really want to talk about, like their kids' graduation pictures, or things that they are really passionate about, like pictures of their sports cars, or vegetable gardens, and so on. And they also come up with really unique names for them as well, while they are playing with those pictures during the treatment. And when we start playing the game, clinicians usually have little knowledge about these images, because they're all really personal to the patients, and they're taken from their personal lives, so they end up being the novices, while the patients become the experts. And my patients have taught me so much about constructing a house and all about engines of cars and things like that that I had no knowledge about. But in one incident, when I was the clinician paired with an individual with anomic aphasia, there was a picture of a building that she could not recognize, and hence she could not tell me much at all. And we went back and forth several times, and we finally ended up calling it the “unknown building.” Later, I checked my notes and realized that it was where she worked, and it was probably a different angle, perhaps, which is why she could not recognize it. But even with that new information, we continue to call it the “unknown building,” because it became sort of an internal joke for us. And later I kept thinking if I had made a mistake and if we should have accurately labeled it. That is when it clicked for me that CRI is not about producing accurate labels, it is about building a common ground with each other, which would help you successfully communicate with that person. So you're targeting the process of referencing and not the reference itself, because you want your patients to get better at the process of referencing in their everyday communication. And so that was my aha moment. Lyssa Rome Yeah, that's an amazing story, because I think that that gets to that question sort of of the why behind what we're doing, right? Is it to say the specific name? I mean, obviously for some people, yes, sometimes it is. But what is underlying that? It's to be able to communicate about the things that are important to people. I also wanted to ask you about another area that you've studied, which is the use of gesture within aphasia interventions. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? Suma Devanga Yes. So this work started with my collaboration with my friend and colleague, Dr. Mili Mathew, who is at Molloy University in New York, and our first work was on examining the role of hand gestures in collaborative referencing in a participant who had severe Wernicke’s aphasia, and he frequently used extensive gestures to communicate. So when he started with CRI his descriptions of the images were truly multimodal. For example, when he had to describe a picture of a family vacation in Cancun, he was, you know, he was verbose, and there was very little meaningful content that was relevant in his spoken language utterances. But he used a variety of iconic hand gestures that were very meaningful and helpful to identify what he was referring to. As the sessions went on with him, his gestural references also became streamlined, just like the verbal references do, and that we saw in other studies. And that was fascinating because it indicated that gestures do play a big role in the meaning-making process of referencing. And in another study on the same participant, we explored the use of hand gestures as treatment outcome measures. This time, we specifically analyzed gestures used within conversations at baseline treatment, probe, and maintenance phases of the study. And we found that the frequency of referential gestures, which are gestures that add meaning, that have some kind of iconics associated with them, those frequencies of gestures decreased with the onset of treatment, whereas the correct information units, or CIUS, which indicate the informativeness in the spoken language itself, increased. So this pattern of decrease in hand gestures and increase in CIUS was also a great finding. Even though this was just an exploratory study, it indicates that gestures may be included as outcome measures, in addition to verbal measures, which we usually tend to rely more on. And we have a few more studies coming up that are looking at the synchrony of gestures with spoken language in aphasia, but I think we still have a lot more to learn about gestures in aphasia. Lyssa Rome It seems like there that studying gestures really ties in to CRI and the rich communicative environments that you were describing earlier, where the goal is not just to verbally name one thing, but rather to get your point across, where, obviously, gesture is also quite useful. So I look forward to reading more of your research on that as it comes out. Tell us about what you're currently working on, what's coming next. Suma Devanga Currently, I am wrapping up my clinical research grant from the ASH Foundation, which was a replication study of the phase two CRI so we collected data from six participants with chronic aphasia using a multiple-probe, single-case design, and that showed positive results on naming, and there was improved scores on patient reports of communication confidence, communicative participation, and quality of life as well. We are currently analyzing the conversation samples to study the treatment effects. I also just submitted a grant proposal to extend the study on participants with different severities of aphasia as well. So we are getting all the preliminary data at this point that we need to be able to start a clinical trial, which will be my next step. So apart from that, I was also able to redesign the CRI and adapt it as a group-based treatment with three participants with aphasia and one clinician in a group. I actually completed a feasibility study of it, which was successful, and I presented that at ASHA in 2023. And I'm currently writing it up for publication, and I also just secured an internal grant to launch a pilot study of the group CRI to investigate the effects of group CRI on communication and quality of life. Lyssa Rome Well, that's really exciting. And again, I'm really looking forward to reading additional work as it comes out. As we wrap up. What do you want clinicians to take away from your work and to take away from this conversation we've had today? Suma Devanga Well, I would want clinicians to reflect on how their sessions are going and think about how to incorporate the principles of rich communicative environments so that they can add more meaningful complexity to their treatment activities and also ensure that their patients are truly engaging with the tasks and also having some fun. And I would also tell the clinicians that we have strong findings so far on CRI with both fluent and non-fluent aphasia types. So please stay tuned and reach out to me if you have questions or want to share your experiences about implementing this with your own patients, because I would love to hear that. Lyssa Rome Dr. Suma Devanga, it has been great talking to you and hearing about your work. Thank you so much for sharing it with us. Suma Devanga It was fantastic talking about my work. Thank you for giving me this platform to share my work with you all. And thank you, Lyssa for being a great listener. Lyssa Rome Thanks also to our listeners for the references and resources mentioned in today's show. Please see our show notes. They're available on our website, www.aphasiaaccess.org. There, you can also become a member of our organization, browse our growing library of materials, and find out about the Aphasia Access Academy. If you have an idea for a future podcast episode, email us at <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>. Thanks again for your ongoing support of aphasia. Access. For Aphasia Access Conversations. I'm Lyssa Rome. References Devanga, S. R. (2025). Collaborative Referencing Intervention (CRI) in Aphasia: A replication and extension of the Phase II efficacy study. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00226">https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00226</a> Devanga, S. R., Sherrill, M., & Hengst, J. A. (2021). The efficacy of collaborative referencing intervention in chronic aphasia: A mixed methods study. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 30(1S), 407-424. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-19-00108">https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-19-00108</a> Hengst, J. A., Duff, M. C., & Jones, T. A. (2019). Enriching communicative environments: Leveraging advances in neuroplasticity for improving outcomes in neurogenic communication disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(1S), 216–229. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0157">https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0157</a> Hengst, J. A. (2015). Distributed communication: Implications of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) for communication disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 57, 16–28. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.09.001">Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.09.001</a> Devanga, S. R., & Mathew, M. (2024). Exploring the use of co-speech hand gestures as treatment outcome measures for aphasia. Aphasiology. Advanced online publication. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2024.2356287">https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2024.2356287</a> Devanga, S. R., Wilgenhof, R., & Mathew, M. (2022). Collaborative referencing using hand gestures in Wernicke’s aphasia: Discourse analysis of a case study. Aphasiology, 36(9), 1072-1095. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2021.1937919">https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2021.1937919</a>

Episode thumbnail for Episode 125. “It was like being put in a damn box”: Healthcare experiences of Black Americans in conversation with Dr. Warren Brown

March 25, 2025

Episode 125. “It was like being put in a damn box”: Healthcare experiences of Black Americans in conversation with Dr. Warren Brown

Welcome to the Aphasia Access Conversations Podcast. I'm Jerry Hoepner. I'm a professor at the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire and co-facilitator of the Chippewa Valley Aphasia Camp, Blugold Brain Injury Group, Mayo Brain Injury Group, Young Person’s Brain Injury Group, and Thursday Night Poets. I'm also a member of the Aphasia Access Podcast Working Group. Aphasia Access strives to provide members with information, inspiration, and ideas that support their aphasia care through a variety of educational materials and resources. I'm today's host for an episode that will feature my friend and colleague, Dr. Warren Brown. I’ve been fortunate to work with Dr. Brown for the past two years and I’m excited to share the work he’s been doing in service of the LPAA. Warren C. Brown, Ph.D., CCC-SLP is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communicative Disorders at Jackson State University. His research explores the intersections of traumatic brain injury (TBI), aphasia, and healthcare disparities, with a focus on cultural and linguistic diversity in clinical care. He serves as a facilitator for the Black Aphasia Group at the Aphasia Center of Acadiana and has published on topics related to brain injury, intersectionality, and patient-provider communication. Dr. Brown is an active member of the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association (ASHA), National Black Association for speech Language Pathology (NBASLH), the Academy of Neurogenic Communication Disorders and Sciences (ANCDS), and Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. Take Aways: <ul class="ul1"> <li class="li2">Learn about health disparities faced by Black Americans.</li> <li class="li2">Learn about the perceptions of Black Americans towards their healthcare providers.</li> <li class="li2">Dr. Brown will continue to facilitate the Black Aphasia Group affiliated with the Aphasia Center of Acadiana.</li> <li class="li2">Dr. Brown and his team to are hoping to publish an anthology project featuring entries from Black Americans with aphasia by fall of next year.</li> <li class="li2">Dr. Brown plans to organize a symposium on aphasia at Jackson State University with a focus on diversity.</li> <li class="li2">Dr. Brown plans to present a poster on the anthology project at the upcoming Aphasia Access Conference.</li> </ul> Interview Transcript: Jerry Hoepner: Alright. Well, Warren, it's good to see you today. I'm fortunate to see you on a regular basis. So, I think this is the second time we've connected today. For different reasons. But I'm glad to have you here as a part of the Aphasia Access Conversations Podcast. I'm hoping you can share a little bit about yourself. I know that some aphasia access affiliates will know you and know a little bit about your work. But I'd like others to get to know you and your work as well, so can you share a little bit about yourself? Warren Brown: Yes, sir. Well, thanks for having me. For sure, this is an honor. I'm a recent graduate from the University of Louisiana and Lafayette. With my PhD. I studied under multiple folks. There. I studied under Anthony Salvatore, Dr. Judith Oxley, and Dr. Jamie Azios. My main areas of interest are traumatic brain injury, aphasia, and all neurogenic disorders related to marginalized populations. Prior to my doc program, I was a practicing clinician for 11 years or so I practiced in mainly acute care hospitals long term, acute care, hospitals, home health, and predominantly in Southern Louisiana. So, and I did a little bit of private practice. I did everything but child language disorders. So I prided myself when I started my doc program as being a clinician first, and thinking about clinical issues, first, because I was gracious enough to get a lot of great experience in my timeframe, so I kind of had a better idea about, you know the areas that I was most mostly interested in prior to going into my doc program. So, I'm married. I have 3 kids Wes, Evie, and Wells, which is my newborn and a lovely wife, Tatiana. I'm a new faculty member at Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi, and I love my job, and I love my students, and I love my research endeavors that I've done thus far. So, you know I'm fortunate enough to work with you, Dr. Hepner, Dr. Louise Keegan, Dr. Jamie Azios Dr. Judith Oxley. Still Dr. Anthony Salvatory. Still Theresa Gray, a few other folks. I'm just happy that Dr. Brandy Newkirk-Turner as well at Jackson State. I'm happy that I have a great group of mentors to ask questions to and bother from time to time. So, I'm just grateful. So yes, sir. Jerry Hoepner: Well, yeah, it's been really fun working with you and getting to know you. And certainly, that really strong, diverse group of mentors is something to build upon for sure. That's a great group of people. So privileged to be a part of that a couple of things that we were going to talk about today. I want to get to your work with the black Americans with aphasia group, and I want to get to some of the new work that you've been doing on an anthology. I'll kind of leave it at that, for now you were gracious enough to share a manuscript. That you and Dr. Azios have under review right now. I know it's not quite published, but I'm wondering if you're willing to give us just a little bit of a preview of that work, and I have a few things that I just think were really powerful from reading that manuscript, and I'm interested in your thoughts on it. So, do you want to tell us a little bit about, like the general context of that manuscript? Warren Brown: Yes, sir, so this was. This was actually a part of my dissertation. My dissertation was a mixed methods. Research project on healthcare encounters of African Americans with aphasia and without aphasia. But I was lucky enough to capture 8 interviews from a qualitative standpoint for that dissertation from African Americans with aphasia from across the United States. Different age ranges different levels of severity and obviously different etiologies from which caused them to acquire aphasia. The paper really came about, because, again, clinically, you know, I always realized that individuals who had aphasia who were black, had a lot of different experiences when it came to healthcare providers and practitioners. And oftentimes, when I would go into a home or see them in a hospital, they would be surprised that I was the individual to see them right. They would think I was a dietary staff member. They would think I was DNA. They would think I was a nurse, everything but a speech pathologist. So, when I had the opportunity to lead or facilitate a group which was the California the conversational group with Dr. Teresa Gray. You know I love to hear the different experiences that those individuals were having, as well coinciding with what I knew what was going on in the field. So that's what spawned this idea about understanding the dynamics of what you know. These encounters were from a deeper perspective. So originally it was going to be just a regular project with Dr. Azios and I, but we felt it'd be better if we made it a larger scale project and added to a portion of my dissertation. So, we did so. We really look to understand those lived experiences of those individuals, how those healthcare encounters went for them before and after they acquired aphasia, and trying to understand, like different strategies and challenges, that you know they may have had to use to overcome some of those issues, and how, you know we could take what they were saying, and make that accessible to practicing clinicians to understand how to work with diverse populations a bit more you know. Yes, sir, so. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, I mean, I found a couple of points that well, actually, several within the background. And literature review that really struck me. There's several of these statistics, but a couple that really stood out to me were the percent of deaths among black Americans during the Covid pandemic. And just you know the marked difference between the amount of actual African Americans in those communities and the numbers that died. Which were that was just really striking to me. And then the other one. The other context that you wrote about was the study of 85 black Americans. That were a part of a VA. Study, a veterans affairs study and really just talked about their, you know, their feelings of being stereotyped by the professionals that we're dealing with them, treated and labeled as if they were uneducated, and addicts and angry and poor, and those really set the context for the study. Wondering if you can just kind of weigh in on those and other kinds of striking background pieces of information. Warren Brown: Yes, sir, so you know, it's known that you know there is racial bias when it comes to African Americans in general, just because of how society is. But you know oftentimes in neurogenic disorders it's unstudied, right? You don't look at race and ethnicity as factors as being contributing factors to some of the issues that the populations that we service are dealing with, you know, looking at Covid alone. You know, we added, that I added that statistic because you know it just kind of highlighted how much racial disparities really are prevalent right and not just individuals with aphasia, but individuals who have a multitude of you call it metabolic issues, right or just issues in general when it comes to healthcare, and how sometimes these issues go unserviced or underserviced, or these individuals are not educated about what they need to do or what they need to accomplish, from a healthcare practitioner which ultimately leads to poorer outcomes across that population. You know. One of the things that we listed in that paper was also about just black women in general, right? Black women are twice as likely to have low birth weights of infants when compared to white women, and they also face lower rates of prenatal care right? Although that doesn't have much to do with aphasia. I think that that speaks to a larger picture than that. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah. Warren Brown: You know. Sometimes African Americans are looked down upon the most across our society. And why? That is, you know, it's a multitude of reasons, right? There is no one pinpointed answer for that, and it just kind of paints to the goes to the bigger picture of racial bias, and how patient and provider communication is just poor across the board, and you know, and it could be because of communication styles are different, right? It could be because of the practitioners. You know the old mindset was that the practitioner is always right, so they should. You know the patient should listen to what they're saying, and it's not. It wasn't necessarily a patient center or person-centered approach like it is nowadays. And some practitioners, especially in the South. They still are under that mind, right? Not necessarily in the South, probably across the board in the United States. Right? So, I think that you know those biases, and some of that lack of communication or poor communication it just contributes to the poor perceptions and stereotypes that are out there in African Americans and black people you know, because regardless. When a black person gets sick, you know, they may be scared to go and talk to a practitioner because of where they live. That might be the only practitioner or specialist that they can see, and they are a family member, or a friend might have had a bad experience. Therefore, they're hesitant to go to that person, and they'll just deal with the issue themselves. And that's where you know. I think a lot of the differences are when it comes to African Americans and healthcare providers. And I've seen that as well with individuals who have acquired language disorders. Right? I've had patients particularly. Tell me when I was practicing that. You know, Warren, we want you to come back, but we don't want the other girl to come back, right? Because you're listening to what I'm saying. You actually are educating us about what's going on more so than just what the language issue is right. And I think that points to the picture of just them feeling comfortable with me, because I'm most of the time with the same ethnicity, right? Same race. And I'm genuine, right? I do the same with any patient that I encounter. But obviously, sometimes, when it's African Americans, and I know what the assumption is, and I understand some of those experiences are, you know I try to go a little bit more. I try to. I try to go the extra mile for them. So, this. Jerry Hoepner: And I think there's it's interesting. And throughout the paper there's parallels to some of the work that you and I and Dr. Keegan have done on healthcare perceptions in traumatic brain injury. That you know you mentioned that idea of providers still following it, falling into that provider centered care rather than person centered care. And I think that's a problem across the board for some providers, because that's evident in our research. But we don't have you know, we're not even representing the black Americans within that group. And I know that the problem is more pervasive when it comes to services for black Americans and other colored people as well. You know the one number that really struck me from the study in Chicago, 70% of. Warren Brown: 70%. Jerry Hoepner: From Covid. Warren Brown: Yeah. Jerry Hoepner: Were black Americans in Chicago, and only 30% of their populations or population was black Americans. That's just. You can't help but be startled by those kind of disparities, because clearly there's something. Warren Brown: Up in there. Jerry Hoepner: Something that. Warren Brown: And these are these are fairly new studies. Right? I mean, the stat for Louisiana was 70 70.5% of this, and they only represent 33% of the State's population. Right? We're African American people. So that. That's you know. My personally, my dad didn't leave his house for a year and a half during Covid he would not go to church. He didn't leave right, and he was terrified. Terrified. You know. I know he had at least 4 or 5 people that died that he knew. You know. So, I mean, it's daunting right especially if you're not educated, or you're not understanding. I had a great relationship with a practitioner that could educate you on, you know the do's and the don'ts of what you should or shouldn't be doing so. Yes, sir. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, absolutely. I kind of broke down the article into 3, like major areas of interest and topics. And I'll just kind of lay out the 1st one being those challenges with healthcare providers. I couldn't help but put down. This one quote was like being put in a damn box, and we had a little conversation about that earlier, but We also talked about this like this lack of knowledge about stroke and that healthcare literacy creating this fear like. And you even mentioned that with your dad, right? This fear that I don't even want to go into that healthcare context. But then this like laundry list of things that we hear in a lot of studies about healthcare perceptions, healthcare providers are dismissive, dismissive, and you feel vulnerable in that context, you don't have control or agency. Those kinds of things that we don't hear in in those other studies about healthcare perceptions are things like. There was a clear. There was a clear prejudice against me. Right? There was this neglect by providers. One lady I had to write this down, wrote. I don't talk to my dog like that, you know, like. Warren Brown: That's right. Jerry Hoepner: So. Warren Brown: That's right. Jerry Hoepner: And then, you know, just a lack of inclusion in decisions in in the whole entire process. And just feeling that sense of people looking down on you, and that you know that this is kind of the expectation. So I'm really interested to get your thoughts about. You know that that issue of those challenges in terms of working with healthcare providers. How many of those are communication based? And what's kind of bias and kind of sorting some of that out, because we know some happens a little bit to everyone in that context. But certainly, this is different. Warren Brown: Yeah, I think that you know we all have personal biases that, you know are inherently that we are. You know that we're introduced to that from an environmental standpoint. But you know, one would assume that when you become a healthcare practitioner provider, you know you have to be open-minded because, you understand, you're going to be dealing with so many different types of people from all walks of life. And unfortunately you know, these disparities still are there, and this particular study showed that they're still there, right one of the examples you just gave about the young lady that said, you know I wouldn't let my dog talk to me like that right? I remember in in her Transcript she also stated that you know, in multiple visits that she went to her physician would talk through her or over her, where she just totally felt dismissed, or one interaction she had. She had a friend who was white that brought her to the doctor, and they felt as if the friend was the patient, and she was the patient caregiver right? And I think that really broke her down. She literally stayed out of therapy or avoided therapy for a long time because of that. And obviously that affected her outcomes right. But I think the bigger picture is that it's a little bit of both, Dr. Hoepner. I think it's a lot of bias, and it's also poor communication. You know, I think, and some of that's not on the physicians themselves. Some of them, I'm sure, are compassionate. I think some of that is on the larger system systemic issues that are out there. Right? You know you have. They have insurance deadlines; they have time frames. They have. Probably some of them are overwhelmed with patient care in general. But I still think that you know to be truly compassionate, you know you need to understand what you're getting into as a practitioner, and still with individuals that you know may not understand some of the dynamics of some of the diseases or illnesses that they have. You have to find a way to provide them services that they need. Right? I think the communication is key, because it always goes back to communication. Right individuals who are educated, which a lot of these folks are. Some of these folks in the study. I had PhD. Some of them were medical doctors, right? Some of them have master's degrees. A lot of them still stated that their health literacy was poor when it came to symptomology, of strokes, symptomology of not just strokes, but them acquiring aphasia what that truly meant, and how that might affect their daily lives. Right. One of the individuals she stated that she didn't realize that you know aphasia was a thing until she had it. She didn't realize that she was having multiple strokes right until it happened, and she just felt like she would bounce back and go back to her daily life and be fine and go about her normal business. But you know it's hard to pinpoint exactly how to fix it. But this study is, I guess, one step towards trying to understand the different dynamics from multiple perspectives. And I think what makes it super unique is this qualitative study is really, really, it's very in depth. That's why it's so long right? It's a long paper. But we felt it necessary to put these quotes in, because these individuals, these interviews long and you can't help but be compassionate and understand each individual's perspective on what their experiences were right. You know, because this dynamic, this really changed their lives. And I know aphasia changed the lives of a lot of different people and caregivers right. Anytime you have a failure or even a brain injury. Right? It changes we know that. But I think compounded with the racial and ethnic tension or societal views that these individuals suffered with prior to having those injuries. This acquiring aphasia only makes whatever was going on a bit worse, because the inability to communicate or even comprehend what's going on around you, right being overstimulated, not necessarily being able to do on your own, or do for yourself, especially with a practitioner on something that's unknown to you is again. That's a daunting thing like you really don't know what to do, and if you feel dismissed, or if you feel as if a practitioner is talking down to you, what would make you, as an individual, want to go back? You know the a good example, I can say, is customer service right? If you go to a restaurant and you receive poor customer service from a from a waitress, will you give them a tip probably, maybe, or you might give them a less amount of tip that you would have gave given to a person who gave you better customer service right? This is a good example of what a physician interaction and communication is with a patient right. Sometimes these individuals just won't go back right or might not go back to any practitioner one of the individuals in the interviews. He literally said that you know he had a few poor encounters, so he switches doctors regularly because a lot of them don't understand him and won't try to understand him. So, you know, it's problematic. It's definitely problematic. Jerry Hoepner: And you hit the customer service thing right on the head, because one of the things that I was struck by, and I've done work kind of parallel to this. And brain injury is that relationship and the importance of starting to build an authentic relationship in terms of mitigating some of the other communication problems, right? Like, if you invest a little bit in like getting to know that human being. You start to humanize them, and you start to, you know, want to have good outcomes for them, and that results in in better care. And it comes right down to that. That patient centered versus provider centered communication. Right? If you open up the door on the front end to investing a little bit in a relationship building, it seems like the goodness follows right like you're saying earlier, like, these physicians aren't bad people right? It's just, you know, they're in a system that says, Go, go. And then they have these biases that they might not even be aware of. And the next thing you know, they're out, you know, on the way out the door, and care hasn't happened in the way that it should. But I'm just struck by the fact that that was like a mitigating factor for people like just a little investment get to know that person. And then everything changes so. Warren Brown: That's right. I think I think that's what you know. Someone asked me a while back. Why, like our Black aphasia group. Why is it so successful? Right? It's because it's not if I don't. The way that I approached it. I didn't approach it as me, Warren brown as an SLP. Right? I approached it, me, Warren Brown is trying to understand these people's stories and get to know them, and fully. How can I, as an SLP, help you right? And I think that's why our group is so successful, right? And why people keep coming back. Because if they didn't feel like it was a genuine interaction, I can assure you they wouldn't come back. Because I genuinely look forward to the group like the group members do, because I love talking to these folks. These are folks of my family, right? And that's the type of community that you know. Practitioners can make it like that right? Jerry Hoepner: Okay. Warren Brown: You know, in certain rehabs. That's what it is. It's a familiar environment. At certain places. I know some of the ones that I used to work at. So, you know, but I definitely understand the dynamics of health care have changed right as time has progressed, and that's due to a multitude of reasons. But care doesn't have to change. Right practitioners can change for the better. If you fully try to understand and invest time and energy and being genuine into the folks that you're seeing right. I truly believe that so. Jerry Hoepner: Agreed, you know, and when I kind of listed a bunch of priorities, or what black people with aphasia want this? Isn't it an outlandish list by any means like, I've got this big, long list of things that are problems. And then they say they just want to be treated with dignity, compassion, and respect. They want. Warren Brown: Right. Jerry Hoepner: Heard, and they want to be treated like human beings. That's not unreasonable. So, it's not like they've got this big, long list of you got to do this. This I just think that's pretty interesting in light of all of the struggles that they're facing like. If you could give us these 4 or 5 things we could. We could work with. Warren Brown: Yes, sir, and I. And I think even with that the you know, interpretation of respect is different from everyone. But I think ultimately, no matter what race, no matter what ethnicity, what creed you are. Respect is respect, you know, treating people the way you want to be treated right. I mean, that's what it is. And you know, talking to people the way that you want to be spoken to. Right? That's what it is. And I think, like you said, it's so simplistic it should be natural. But obviously it's not for some people right? Jerry Hoepner: Okay. Warren Brown: And that's and that's problematic. But hopefully, it's hopefully, we're trying to change that. So you know. Jerry Hoepner: Yep. yeah. Finding a way to make those priorities on the front end. I think that really makes sense. The other thing I wanted to talk to you about kind of get your take on. This is along with the challenges and along with kind of these desires. What people with aphasia want? I just noticed a lot of strengths that I'm not seeing in some of the other research that's out there from the perspective of survivors of brain injury and so forth. Things that I just saw flowing through like this idea of self-reliance like I learned, I gotta rely on myself, I rely on my faith and my religious beliefs. And then this really struck me, this, this cultural community, where one of the one of the participants said something to the extent of, We always stay in each in each other's business, kind of like, whether we want it or not, whether they want it or not, and that allows them to help each other. I’d just like to get your thoughts on that, because that seems like such a strength of this community. Warren Brown: Yes, sir, that's a that's a loaded question, but I can definitely break it down. So, I love that question, though I think that you know, from perspective of self-reliance. That's definitely a cultural thing, right? Because, you know, personally, I'm 38. So, I was raised to not be dependent on someone else, because you really can't depend on what someone else can do for you outside of what you can do for yourself. That is something that is instilled at a young age and I went to Southern for my master's right Southern university in Baton Rouge, which is a historically black college or whatnot. And you know, at Southern they taught us the same thing, because, you know, as you know, our field is predominantly white women, right? Less than 5% African Americans, even less percent African American men. And at Southern they always said, You have to work twice as hard in order to be in this field and be successful. And they instilled that in us so much right. Because you really have to understand that you know society has painted this picture that things are against you and these individuals, with aphasia in their own careers, have had this same type of battle and everything that they've gone through. So, they've always had to prevail. And some of these individuals in this group. They went through the Jim Crow South right they went through struggles of individuals, fully talking down to them, having separate everything, having to deal with parents and grandparents that, you know, had to bow down to certain people because of the societal norms at the time, so that self-reliance, you know, always was there, because they always had to work harder in order to achieve what even was fair or normal for other people right? And that paints it to a bigger picture, even goes back to the level of respect. Right? If you work twice if you feel like you working harder than someone else for a job. And you know you're more qualified. Right? That's something that that you feel you're owed. But to some black people you understand that I'm not old. Anything right? That's just how society paints it. It is what it is, and I think that goes back to that point. And I'm sorry. What was the other question? I was trying to. Jerry Hoepner: So, I think just that that cultural community. Warren Brown: The cultural. Yes, sir. Jerry Hoepner: Others, business and. Warren Brown: So that kind of touched on it, like I think from a cultural standpoint, you know I am my brother's keeper. Right. You may or may not know this, but I'm in a I'm in a predominantly African American fraternity. Right? We're the oldest fraternity, and that's something that we learned right. You. You never go anyplace by yourself. You always have your brother with you. I always have you know I am my brother's keeper, and that goes from, you know, not just African American males, but African American females, and vice versa, because that sense of community, you know. Again, we talked about it earlier with the Speech acts is unspoken, things that we understand inherently, that as an African American or a black person, you're going to endure in life, and you have to just suck it up and swallow your pride and deal with it. But we all are going through that struggle right, and I think some demographic groups can relate to that. But obviously some groups can't as much right. It's harder to you can empathize. But you may not fully understand, just because the dynamics are different, right? And I'm not saying that all black people have that experience. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that a lot of black people feel like that. And that was inherent in the interviews as well. Because this group, you know, they, we talk about community. We talk about personal experiences and regardless. If some of them had a PhD., a MD a Ms., a BA right behind their names. All of them had the same experiences. Right? I have to highlight one of the folks in the group. He went to Harvard. He was the second African American person to graduate with a PhD. From the State of Mississippi. Right, you could. I could only imagine. And he did this in the seventies. I could only imagine the struggle that he had to go through right to attain a degree like that from a school like that coming from where he came from. So you know something that you know other people's family members may have done, you know, is probably much more meaningful to him because of the struggle he had to go through, and I think that is where the community comes in because African Americans acknowledge that right? I was always told. Like, you know, school is important. Education is important, you know, education to get you a lot further in life than sports and all these other things, because, you know, it was always instilled that in education, you know, knowledge is power and you know these older folks. I call them older folks. No offense, right? No ageism here. But you know the 70 plus right. Those individuals who have doctorates and really are fully educated. Their battle and struggle was much harder than mine coming through school right? And I. And that's a level of respect, a level of community that we all know how to respect. And I think you know, when it comes to community, that's something that we all can recognize as a culture. And with this particular group, that's something that's respected across the board because, regardless of the level of severity of aphasia, they have every individual in that group respects one another. They check on one another. They listen to stories about one another. They know about each other's family right? Milestones. It's phenomenal, right. When I got my doctorate. They were the 1st people to congratulate me right. When someone had another struggle in the group. We were the 1st to say a prayer for them and why? That is cultural. It's a traditional thing. I mean, it probably ties back to slavery before the great migration, right? And folks moved up and all around from the south to different parts of the North. Right? That's something that is always probably going to be there. And that's a cultural thing that you know, is really unspoken a lot of times. So. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah. You know, you talked about the people in the study, the people with PhDs and master's degrees and physicians. One of the stories I kind of connected with was Ann Story. She was a physician prior to her stroke, and had acknowledged that she had colleagues that she would refer black Americans to, and colleagues she wouldn't and then she had the stroke, and she had this very personal, insider experience. I don't know if you want to just say a couple of things about that. Warren Brown: Yes, sir, she actually, I'm glad you said that she actually definitely said that she referred people to certain practitioners because she knew certain physicians with had more empathy than others. Right now, her experience was a little bit different, right? She didn't really have any negative experiences with practitioners, but also all of them knew she was a medical doctor, right? And I think that you know that level of information is different, because had they not known who knows what her story would have been right as opposed to the individual with the PhD. They didn't know he had a PhD. Because at the time of his stroke he couldn't talk, so it wasn't until his wife came and alerted them as to who he was and where he worked, that some of that stuff shifted, and obviously it shifted when he went to different facilities as well. But Ann's experience was very, very different than some of the other individuals, but I think that even with that she was much more conscious about her experiences as well, because she kind of had a better anticipation about what she was supposed to receive and how services were supposed to go for her right. And that goes back to the bigger picture of healthcare literacy right? Obviously, her literacy and understanding of how healthcare works was a bit better because she was a medical doctor, and I think even just. Her journey with aphasia was a bit better in a lot of different ways as well. Yes, sir. Jerry Hoepner: Yeah, that's really important to have that that perspective and that kind of juxtaposition. Well, I do want to make sure we have some time to talk a little bit about your role in running the Black aphasia group, and how that's changed your clinical perspective, your research perspectives kind of what you've learned in that. In that context. Warren Brown: Absolutely so. Originally, I was gung ho! About brain injury. Only, right? I didn't really necessarily want to go into aphasia as much as I am, because my premise for going to get the PhD. Or really one of the main reasons why was I wanted to study sports, related concussions mostly. But once I got into the program and I learned about some of the different, the different profs, some of their interests, you know. I couldn't help myself, but dip into it some, and I got an opportunity at the last Aphasia conference to meet Teresa Gray and she allowed me to facilitate her group out in California, and then we started our own group through the aphasia center of Acadiana with Dr. Azios and Miss Rose Shelf. So, you know, I still run that group. It's still affiliated with the aphasia center of Acadiana. Although I'm in Jackson State. I asked Dr. Azios if we could continue to do that because I think that that connection to an aphasia center is integral. Because I think that you know with the group, that's what we're known for. And that's what we're going to stay as long as they'll have me. So. You know, with that group I've learned so much more than what I knew before, as far as compassion, as far as empathy. As far as, although you might be the expert or the practitioner, you still need to understand the dynamics of the individuals that you're seeing just hearing some of their stories, and even personally, as a practitioner, some of the things that I used to do right, which were probably wrong, because that's how I was trained originally in the beginning, you know, and I shifted throughout my career as well, because I understood a lot more, but I think even more so now, I really fully understand. And that's kind of what I teach a lot of the students that I have right how to understand the dynamics of people that you're working with and the students at Jackson State. They have an opportunity now where they actually come on with the group, and I allow them to have somewhat of a conversational type of discourse with the members, so they can understand those dynamics, for whenever they get out in the field to understand how to work with diverse people with aphasia. So, one of the things that you know, we were able to start with the group members. And this was all the group members. They wanted to create an anthology, right? Because they stated that they wanted to document right their journeys and journeys for other people who are African Americans or of color to understand. You know what you may or may not go through right that you are not alone, that you aren't in a damn box by yourself. Right? They wanted to understand that also for caregivers what to do, because all of these individuals literally stated, they all were oblivious to aphasia prior to this, prior to acquiring it. So this anthology is serving, as you know, just a guide or tool to use for individuals and for other individuals with aphasia who may or may not be of color to relate with right and for individuals to understand like, Hey, you know, this is what I went through. You know I am black with aphasia. This is also to get other people who are black with aphasia in their caregivers to understand that. Hey? We have a group for us out there that you may or may not want to be a part of and last week we actually added a new member. So that was wonderful. But so far, we have multiple different entries. The group participants have entered essays. They've entered poetry. Some have done checklists, some have done prayers some have even one. We have one from a caregiver. Her husband has aphasia. She comes to the group as well. We love her. She's actually a compound pharmacist. She wrote about her perspective as a caregiver in the anthology as well. So. Jerry Hoepner: Cool. Warren Brown: Me. Being in Jackson state. I got lucky enough to talk with Dr. Brandon Newkirk Turner, and Dr. Morris is that the University of Saint Augustine. They connected me with Dr. Mcdaniels, who's over the Humanity Society in Mississippi, and she's gonna help us to get it out there. So. Jerry Hoepner: Awesome. Warren Brown: And recently we started a collaboration with one of the art, the Black art History professors at Jackson State, Dr. Brittany, Meinberg. We're actually going to make it aphasia friendly. So, whereas we're gonna have mirrored pictures of the entries and the pictures of those entries from an abstract standpoint for individuals who have aphasia so they can read it and be aphasia friendly as well. So yes, sir, that's the idea, and hopefully we'll have something by the fall of next year. So. Jerry Hoepner: Because. Warren Brown: At JSU, we're going to be doing a symposium on aphasia. And obviously, since it's an HBCU we're gonna have some focus on diversity with that as well. So yes, sir. Jerry Hoepner: Well, I'm excited to see that anthology come to fruition and look forward to kind of keeping an eye out for that and everyone out there who's listening. Keep an eye out for that as well. Just a handful. 2 or 3 more questions I want to ask. Just find out a little bit more about your experience. I know that you've had opportunities to work alongside of some great researchers and clinicians. I want to get your perspectives on that. And yeah, share a little bit about that, and how that's prepared you to be like a brand new professor this year. So. Warren Brown: Yes, yes, sir, absolutely you know. I can honestly say it's truly been a blessing since I started at UL, and I'm done now to be able to encounter all the folks that I have. You know, from Dr. Salvatore to Dr. Michael Canito to you. Right, Dr. Hoepner to Dr. Louise Keegan, Dr. Azios, Oxley Ryan, Nelson. You know the list goes on right. Everybody that I've worked with and spoken to all have different perspectives of our research, you know, and I and I take pieces from everyone that I've worked with to understand how I want to approach things right, because my love is always going to be diversity right in whatever area that I'm in. And you know, I think that's what makes me a little bit unique, right? Because my perspective is always looking at the population that I mainly care the most about right. And you know understanding the different dynamics about how you all have what you all have done. And from reading, all of you guys work, I call it borderline stalking. You guys work right? I remember the 1st time I met you, Dr. Hoepner, I was terrified to talk to you, man I really was, and then, when you introduce yourself to me, I was quiet, and I was like, he's normal. He's not like, I thought he was. So, I was like, Okay, this, this is cool. So, and Dr. Jamie said, just go talk to him. He's cool. Go talk to him. I was like Okay, but I use it as an example, because, you know we're all human, and I think that you know sometimes, you know, as a new researcher, as a novice researcher, as a student, you know, you get overwhelmed with the people that you're reading about, the books that you're using or books that you're reading. These are the folks that are writing it. And hopefully, one day you can get to that level to impact students like myself, like I was, or students that are out there, up and coming students. So, you know, I think, that all the work that everyone is that I've learned under and still learning under, you know, it's important, because this is all. This is all, how we all are contributing to the field and how we're making the field better. Right? I think that's the ultimate goal ultimately is to serve the population of individuals that we're treating. It's never about me, right? It's never about you. It's never about any of this is about the work that we're doing to improve outcomes, to improve the populations that we serve. And you know, clinically, I've worked with some phenomenal clinicians. When I was a clinic, when I was a clinician when I was a full-time clinician and you know I've had great clinicians that I've worked under and with, and horrible at the same time. I think we all have, and you know, when I was in administration I would fire and hire people left and right. I would let people know if they were horrible, and I would just go on and keep moving. But I think you know now that I've shifted to research and understanding how clinicians think to a certain degree. You know, I can understand why some clinicians practice the way they do or did, because they were ignorant to what's out there, you know. Earlier on in my career I was oblivious to aphasia. I heard nothing about it. I work in acute care hospitals, major acute hospitals because they weren't that popular in the South, right? It wasn't really until I got to Southern, and I taught undergrad for a while. And you know in some of the text that I was reading. I read about it, and I was like, Oh, I never knew that was a thing right, because they weren't offered. We had Parkinson's groups. But we never had aphasia group, right? And I think that you know, and TBI groups that we have that as well. But I think these groups are much more impactful because they do serve as a sense of community for a multitude of people. And these groups are places where individuals can go when they plateau out of therapy. And I want to say something on that, too. That's actually one of the topics we wrote about in the anthology. What does it feel like to be plateaued or told you plateaued in therapy? Right? And it's just amazing how you know as a clinician, you say that to someone right? Or you meet, you met Max level of potential. You say that to someone, but you don't fully understand the mental or the impact that you have on an individual when you say that right? And that was something we talked about. And now they're writing about it. And I'm like man. I never thought about that as a clinician. So I say that to say even I'm still learning right. That's something we should know. But you don't think about it from a clinical standpoint, because that's a standardized thing. But to an individual who's suffering from or had to endure what you're saying to them, it's a totally different perspective. Right? So, you know, I'm learning that. And I'm learning how to be more compassionate, too. So yes, sir, I'm learning a lot. I love it. I love it so. Jerry Hoepner: We are well on your way, and you will make that impact on a lot of students. I'm sure you already have. Well, just to kind of bring things to a close. I want to end with a lighter note hopefully, a lighter note. What brings you peace in the midst of this sometimes crazy world that we're living in. Warren Brown: Oh, man, I love! I love my kids and my wife. I love my kids and my wife. They bring me peace. I'm a I’m a classic car collector. I love my classics, too. I have them. Can I share about that? Jerry Hoepner: Absolutely. Warren Brown: So, I have a 1969, a 396 Chevelle that I bought years ago. And we're restoring that we're almost done with that. I just have to get it painted. And recently I bought a 1985 K. 5 Chevy Blazer that we started to restore as well. It's a smaller engine. It's a 305, but that's something that brings me peace as well. You know my dad was a jack of all trades. So, I learned at a young age how to construct houses, how to do plumbing electrical fix cars. That's why I went to college, so I didn't want to do that full time. So, but one thing about it is that you know, I learned how to do all those things, so I can teach that to my kids. And hopefully, that's our family time. You know that we do these things together. That's what truly brings me peace, my family, and a lot of my friends. So, for sure. Yes, sir. Jerry Hoepner: Well, that's fantastic. And obviously you and I could talk all day. We need to wrap things up. Hopefully. We'll get to see you at the Aphasia Access Leadership Summit and connect there. Warren Brown: I'll be there. Yes, sir. 01:05:02.260 --> 01:05:11.929 Jerry Hoepner: Connect with a whole bunch of new people. That you haven't met yet, too. So, thank you so much. Warren and I look forward to talking to you again soon. Warren Brown: Thanks, Dr. Hoepner. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Jerry Hoepner: You're so welcome. On behalf of Aphasia Access, thank you for listening to this episode of the Aphasia Access Conversations Podcast. For more information on Aphasia Access and to access our growing library of materials go to www.aphasiaaccess.org. If you have an idea for a future podcast series or topic, email us at [email protected]. Thanks again for your ongoing support of Aphasia Access.

December 19, 2024

Episode 124: Friendship, literacy and reading in Aphasia: An Interview with Liz Madden

Dr. Janet Patterson: Welcome to this Aphasia Access Aphasia Conversations Podcast, a series of conversations about the LPAA model and aphasia programs that follow this model. My name is Janet Patterson, and I am a research speech-language pathologist at the VA Northern California Healthcare System in Martinez, California. Today, I am delighted to be speaking with Dr. Elizabeth Madden, an Assistant Professor at Florida State University in the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders and an affiliate of the Institute for Successful Longevity. Liz also leads the FSU Aphasia Research Laboratory. Liz's research, teaching and clinical interests focus on rehabilitation of aphasia, and specifically on understanding the relationship between spoken and written language abilities in individuals with aphasia and developing behavioral treatments to address reading and writing disorders post stroke. Her work also addresses the impact of aphasia on the friendships and social well-being of people with aphasia and their care partners. These Show Notes accompany the conversation with Liz but are not a verbatim transcript. In today’s episode you will hear about: <ol class="ol1"> <li class="li4">the power of friendship and what people with aphasia and care partners think about how aphasia can affect the ability to create and sustain friendships,</li> <li class="li4">the definition of literacy and its behavioral components, and</li> <li class="li4">behavioral treatments for reading comprehension deficit in aphasia.</li> </ol> In 2024, Liz was named a Distinguished Scholar USA by the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia UK. The Tavistock Trust aims to help improve the quality of life for those with aphasia, their families and care partners by addressing research capacity related to quality-of-life issues in aphasia. Congratulations on receiving this honor, Liz. Aphasia Access collaborates with the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia in selecting the awardees and is pleased to have the opportunity to discuss their work and the career influence of the Tavistock Award. Welcome Liz, to Aphasia Access Conversations. Dr. Liz Madden: Thank you, Janet. I'm really happy to be here today. I also say thank you to Aphasia Access and to the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia. I'm very grateful for this award and excited to have this conversation. Janet: I'm excited to be talking to you, my friend and research partner in several endeavors that we've been working on over the last few years. Liz, as we've said, you were named a Tavistock Trust Distinguished Scholar USA for this year, and you join a talented and dedicated group of individuals. How has receiving the Tavistock Award influenced your clinical and research efforts in aphasia, Liz: I first wanted to extend that thank you to the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia, and specifically Henrietta, the Duchess of Bedford and the honorable Nicole Campbell, and just a very gracious, sincere thank you for all the time and effort and support they give to aphasia researchers. I would say, I'm just delighted and very humbled to be recognized this year. I would say further that this award motivates my work that is focused on trying to really make an impact on the lives and quality of life and successful living for people who have aphasia and continuing my work. My beginning work was really more impairment focused, which some of that we will talk about, and I really value that. But having this award, and the more I stay in the field, it is extending that and making sure that everything I'm doing always is directly related to helping the lives of people with aphasia. Janet: That leads right into the question I'd like to begin with Liz, which is about your recent work investigating the role of friendship for persons with aphasia. I believe in the power of friendship and community during joyful times and also during the sad times in one's life. In Aphasia. Access podcast episode number 119, Finding the person in front of aphasia, I talked with your friend and colleague, Dr Lauren Bislick, with whom I believe you collaborate to investigate friendship and aphasia. How did you become interested in this aspect of aphasia, and what can you tell us about your work in this area and your collaboration with Lauren? Liz: Lauren and I did our Ph.D.’s together. We both were mentored by Diane Kendall at the University of Washington, so Lauren and I are Ph.D. sisters. Also, we were both at Project Bridge, led by Dr. Jackie Hinkley in 2018. That's really where my interest in friendship began. That conference brought together researchers, speech-language pathologists, people with aphasia, and their friends and family. I was the researcher at a table, and we ended up being Team Friendship. Lauren was also at this meeting, but she was at Team Yoga; Lauren does a lot of work with friendship, but also with yoga. My other colleague who does a lot of friendship work with me is Dr. Michelle Therrien here at FSU. She primarily works with children who use AAC, but her main research is friendship. She and I had already had some conversations about the importance of friendship, particularly for people who have communication disorders. The idea was we leave the conference and to take action and carry out some of the goals that were generated from that discussion. So that's when I reached back out to Lauren, because she was at that conference. Then I also reached out to my friend, Michelle Therrien, and other individuals who became part of our Team Friendship, Dr. Sarah Wallace, who's also one of our good friends and collaborators, and Rachel Gough Albritton who is one of Jackie Hinkley’s former doc students and here at FSU as well. and the office of research. That is the background of some conversations before Project Bridge, but really for me, coming back and actually starting studies addressing different aspects of friendship, which I know we'll talk more about, was really brought about by the Project Bridge conference. Janet: That is quite a story, and I can see you sitting around the table and developing Team Friendship - good for you. We all know, Liz, that one of the unfortunate consequences of aphasia can be the loss of or the diminishing of friendships, or the disruption of the communication skills important to developing and sustaining friendship and community. What have you learned from people with aphasia about their successes and challenges in sustaining and creating new friendships. Liz: Yes, good question. Well, at that conference that I mentioned, there were five or six people with aphasia, and initially our table was labeled something like, What happens in the long run? and we started having conversations. It was very clear after our initial conversation that the group centered on relationships and friendship, so we shifted to being friendship only. I will say, just at that table, it became very clear to me, that's what rose to the top when the group was thinking about the bigger picture of living life. In a research project we've done there was a small sample of 15 people with aphasia, and we talked to them over time. I think the timing of a conversation is really something important to keep in mind when we're talking to people with aphasia about any topic, of course, but particularly friendship. From other studies we've noticed that responses are really different. If we're talking during the early days, maybe the acute days, versus the chronic days, we'd get really different responses. Just a quick summary, again, this was 15 people and a unique set. Most people in our study were a part of aphasia groups, and, of course, really motivated to do research. But I will say, when we looked at their responses, when asked to think back to the early days, all different aspects of friendship, how supported they felt, or how they were able to communicate, and we compared it to their responses in the now. Overall, the pattern was less satisfaction, feeling less supported or less able to engage in those earlier days, but more of a recovery pattern over time, but again, not for everybody. There were still a few people in our group that were reporting not having many friends. Our paper had a different light, a positive light about friendships. Some of the other papers out there have a more negative tone. It's a very important area we need to address. I was happy to see this group reporting, now that they had been living with aphasia for several years, their pattern of more negative responses early, and a recovering pattern now. They reported making friends with other people who have aphasia, and finding at this point, who are those good friends. There's other great work being done by other colleagues, Brent Archer, Jamie Azios and Katie Strong, who are studying the same topic. They had a great paper that describes who stuck around, they were examining the next steps of what it takes to support the positive recovery that we know does happen for some people. Janet: I like the positive perspective you are taking. Given that one has had a stroke, and given that the this is the situation in life, what is the positive? What can you do? Who are your friends? Look at positive ideas rather than publishing research on all the negative aspects. Kudos to you for doing that. Liz: Thanks, all of it's important, right? We have to know that. I think we had a special group. I think we had a particularly positive outcome, and it was good to know that friendships don't disappear for everyone. But I think there's something that those people had done and that their friends had done, that we're still trying to learn more about. Janet: Thank you for that work. Liz. It makes me think about the aphasia journey in that it involves not just the person with aphasia, but also their care partners and all the people around them. In your investigations of friendship, what do the care partners of persons with aphasia tell you about their successes and challenges in sustaining and developing friendships? These friendships could be individual friendships or partner friendships or group friendships through social, religious or professional activities or even community groups. Liz: Thank you for this question. I think it's sometimes a forgotten group that we overlook, the care partners, and the critical role they play in the recovery of people with aphasia. I always try to have us remember we want the care partners to do well on their own as people, and so we've done a couple projects. We've just finished data collection on a much larger study of 80 aphasia care partners, and I'm just getting into those data. We did a Qualtrics survey and also did experience sampling, where we used a phone app, and four times a day for two weeks, participants got these little pings, and they had to tell us, Where are you? What are you doing? Who are you with? How are you feeling? When was the last time you interacted with a friend? Was it a text? I don't have the amazing outcomes for you yet. This project was a much bigger follow-up to a project a few years ago with 35 care partners. We, of course, wanted to interview them but then COVID was happening, so we settled for a really nice Qualtrics survey. I will say that these individuals were surprised when we were reaching out to them. They kept trying to schedule their loved one with aphasia, and we said, “No, we want to talk to you about your friendships.” And they were surprised, asking, “You want to talk about me.’ I will say they were very excited that we wanted to know about them. Back to the timeline I shared earlier in that very small study, the profile was opposite. We asked them about their friendships before they were caregivers, the early stages of caregiving, and then now, and their comments kind of make sense. Across the group they reported in the early stages, they felt like they had really great friends, support and satisfaction. People were rallying around them, coming to the hospital to support them. Many of them had been caregiving for a very long time when we did a comparison, and their reported friendship satisfaction and support was actually lower now. The questions were not the same and the groups were different, but as I told you a few minutes ago, the people with aphasia were more negative in the acute stage, and our small group were more positive now with how they're feeling about their friendships, and the care partners were the opposite. They were feeling more supported in the beginning, and now as time has gone on, some of them report the friends aren't there as much. Some of them felt like they were a burden, or they didn’t know how to engage, being very selfless. They have dropped their own social interests to take care of their loved one. We did see in that project, that the longer, the more months a person had been caregiving, was correlated with poor self-perceived friendships and also how they perceived their loved one’s health. That was just their perception. If they perceived their loved one to have more health concerns, not just a feature but overall health, they also tended to rate themselves as not as satisfied with their friendship. Bringing in that piece of information and the caregiving burden into our new projects, we did actually get scales on resilience and caregiving burden depression. In this new project we replicated some of our same questions, and we're now trying to look more at overall well-being, seeing how resilience and purpose in life and caregiving burden might play a role. Janet: That reminds me of the commercials, when you are taking off in an airplane or when you are thinking about being a care partner, you do have to take care of yourself as the care partner before you can give the best care to the person with aphasia. Anything that we can do to focus on the person the with aphasia, and also focus on the care partner, I think, is good in terms of developing and sustaining friendships, Liz: Yes. Care partners definitely have a lot more to say, and we haven't actually been able to do face to face interviews yet, but we did have a lot of really rich, open ended responses and surveys that we're still looking through. A piece I'm really interested in, is we have that one-time perception when they did our one-time survey, now we have their responses, we can track how people respond over a two-week period, were they always at home with their loved ones and not responding to friends? I think there's just a lot and again, trying to understand from this group what are the positives. Who are the people that have these positive responses? Then, of course, the next big steps are trying to provide more research resources and interventions for both care partners and people with aphasia. Our group has not yet reached out to friends, so that's a big part to come. I think other researchers have examined friends and a key part intervening with these friends too. Janet: People with aphasia and care partners have different friendship styles and needs, and when aphasia disrupts communication, it can also affect the way a person approaches friendship. As speech-language pathologists, I believe that we can play a role in guiding a person with aphasia and a care partner to develop communication skills that can support friendship efforts. Liz, what are some ideas or actions that you might think of for speech-language pathologists in a busy clinical practice? What kind of actions can they take to support friendship activities, for a person with aphasia, recognizing, of course, that we are all different in our friendship activities. Also recognizing that you're at the very beginning of some of this work, I'm hoping that you have some ideas you might be able to share with us. Liz: Yes, actually our very first friendship project addressed this topic. It was led by Michelle Therrien, and we surveyed about 40 speech-language pathologists trying to find out their view of the role that they think they should play. They find friendship to be very important. They find it to be in their scope of practice. But not surprising, were not aware of resources. They felt overwhelmed with how much speech-language pathologists have to cover, right? But it was really good to know that the group we reached out to found it to be a very important part of their practice that they want to address. I think you hit on something really important, that we teach and adopt having a person-centered care model, and we know that it's part of what we ask about. The simplest thing is asking. We don't need tools. We just need to make sure it's part of what we ask, making sure we're talking about relationships, talking about friendships. There are some really great tools that do exist. There's the Stroke Social Network Scale by Sarah Northcott and Katerina Hillary from the UK. Katie Strong, Brent Archer, Jamie Azios and Natalie Douglas are a wonderful group who have been studying friendship. They've used the Social Convoy Model in some of their papers. It has a great visual that they have used, and therapists can also use. Basically, it is mapping out the social network of who's most important, which could be used one time, or as a pre-post measure. There are different ways, formal or informal, of trying to monitor someone's social network or how they feel supported. I don't think there's a target number of friendships and I don't think more means better, but it could be just making sure we're checking in and that we know that's an important part of therapy. We want them to be able to communicate and interact with friends. Speech-language pathologists are creative in to how to make that happen. Janet: I agree with that view Liz, and I hope that speech-language pathologists will feel comfortable being creative and asking people about their friendships or what they might need to help maintain or sustain their friendships. I would like to turn now to the topics of reading and literacy, which I know you have been investigating. While these terms are related, they are not synonymous. Would you please explain the difference between them and how you are investigating both in your research? Liz: Yes. Thanks. That is a good question. To be honest, the first answer is not very scientific. When I was writing papers it was getting cumbersome to always write reading and spelling/ writing. The term came to be when I wanted to make sure that I was making it clear that I wasn't just focused on reading, but also concerned with the spelling and writing components. With my colleagues, Jessica Obermeier and Aaron Bush, we started using the term literacy for some of our work. People will have different ideas of what literacy might entail. I have been describing treatment as “literacy focused”, working on reading and spelling and writing. My initial work was very much focused on reading, and over the past several years I became more interested in trying to also add on the spelling component. If we're working on spelling and writing it gives us a chance to inherently work on the reading. If we're only focused on reading, it doesn't bring in the writing. There's a time for them to be separate, I fully agree. There are also times where they can be targeted at the same time. Janet: That makes perfect sense. When I think about how we discussed in the past, reading for pleasure, or reading to gain knowledge, or reading for information, or reading for safety, so many different aspects of reading, literacy also factors into how you use reading in those situations. Liz: Yes, and so in a lot of day-to-day communication, you need both, right? It's for text messaging, right? We need to read it and respond in a written way, also emails. There are lots of instances where for the for the interaction to go well, we need to be able to read and respond in writing, such as filling out forms, email, texting, social media. For a lot of interactions we need both for there to be a successful written language exchange. Janet: Liz, as part of our work with the Academy of Neurologic Communication Disorders and Sciences, Aphasia Writing Group, you and I were part of the team who critically reviewed treatment approaches for reading comprehension deficits in persons with aphasia. You've also investigated, as you mentioned earlier, specific aspects of reading deficits in persons with aphasia. What are some of the insights that you have gained from this work? And by the way, it was such a pleasure doing that critical review of treatment for reading deficits, and there was a lot of interesting information that came to light in that paper. Liz: Yes, thank you. I was going to comment that I remember we thought we were going to have all these papers to go through and really and that review, we were very much focused on papers where the main outcome was reading comprehension. When we stuck to what our aim was, there really weren't that many papers that that met the aim of that project. So that really brought to light that it really is an area of our field that doesn't have enough attention. Some of my recent projects, as I mentioned with Aaron Bush and Jessica Obermeier, we've talked to people with aphasia and gotten their perspective of before and early days. I really like doing this research over time. Things change, but we learned just how important reading and writing are to people with aphasia, and that they really want to work on it. I think we've seen when we looked in the literature, there wasn't much there. When we've talked to people with aphasia and speech-language pathologists, they want to work on reading, and they're not sure how. That further motivates me that this is an area to work on. In some of my beginning work, I was Diane Kendall’s research speech language pathologist for a few years before I did my Ph.D., and I exclusively delivered her phono motor treatment. In that research trial, the main outcome was word retrieval, but the therapy that she designed inherently worked a lot on reading and writing. We retrained every phoneme - how to say it, what your mouth is doing, and also the graphemes that go with the phonemes. As her research speech pathologist, that's really when I got very interested in reading. I'd be in these sessions, and we'd finally bring out the graphemes that go with the phonemes. I recall telling people that this is going to get better – and it did not. That connection between the phonemes and the graphemes, for a lot of people, wasn't there. In that clinical experience as her research speech pathologist is when I realized that the treatment improved reading for some people, but not for everyone. So that's my background of really getting focused on reading. In the last few years, I've been working on adapting that original version of treatment that was for word retrieval. I've added some components to make it more focused on reading. I've been working with Olga Burkina, who's at the Kessler Stroke Foundation, and has an NIH grant where she is pairing exercise with this reading focused phono motor treatment. It's fun to be a part of that group exploring the idea of doing aerobic exercise to improve the brain blood flow, and to see if that's going to help improve reading treatment. Again, the idea being going forward is what the treatment might change. There are some other projects also. I'm working with Will Graves at Rutgers. He is using computational modeling to have us stop guessing which treatment. We're trying to get a really good baseline assessment, trying to find out about semantic impairment, phonological impairment, and then we're using this reading focused phono motor treatment. We also have a reading focus semantic feature analysis. I really enjoy getting to work with different researchers who have these wonderful, big questions, and that I'm getting to support it as the speech-language pathologist on these projects focused on reading and writing and phono motor treatment. So those are some exciting projects I'm involved in right now. Janet: That's exciting, because you started out by saying there were only a few papers that we found that really address reading treatment, and you're right. It's daunting, then how do you select the reading treatment? How do you help this person with aphasia who wants to improve their reading comprehension? I think it's exciting that you've got all these different avenues and are working with a variety of people to investigate treatment. Liz: Yeah. And the one thing I'll add to that is part of that, that review we did, for some people those treatments are helping reading comprehension. But for some people, I've been trying to work on the next step. I have a very small dataset where I've added a semantic comprehension stage to my adapted photo motor treatment. I'm in the very early stages of this and I'm sure it's fine to say, but I've been having these really exciting conversations with Kelly Knollman-Porter and Sarah Wallace. They're also Tavistock Trust recipients, and they study reading from a different perspective, using text to speech, compensatory and very focused book reading. They're very comprehension focused, so we're at the very early, fun stages of where we are in our thinking. I think there might be a middle step we are missing, but we are talking about taking these impairment focused treatments, which I think have a role, and have a participation, functional part of it. That’s another emerging, new collaboration, where we are coming to reading from different perspectives, and we're trying to see where we can get with that goal, back to this comprehension question, improving functional reading, maybe from impairment and compensatory approaches. Janet: I think that's the right approach to take, and I think it's exciting, because we have to remember that everybody reads differently. Some people like reading, some people don't enjoy reading. They read what they have to, but they don't particularly enjoy it. So, if we all come to it from different perspectives, we all have different strengths that we bring, and different deficits as well, and different needs or designs, just as is so many things with aphasia. Start with the person with aphasia, asking What do you want to read? What problems are you having? Then use that as a guide to selecting an impairment-based treatment or text to speech treatment, or whatever. I think that's exactly the right approach. Liz: The one thing the treatment we were talking about, phono motor treatment, in general, is a phonology treatment. The good thing is that my focus is asking, is it improving reading? I'm also extending it to writing. We do know at its core, it's a language treatment, so it is nice that it can be tweaked to serve the person's main interests. I think that's important, that we are trying to work on what people want to work on, but we want to make sure we're improving, if we can, not just one language modality, and we know that these abilities are supported by similar brain structures and underling cognitive processes. That's something else we've been trying to work on, being person centered and at the same time trying to maximize generalization - lots of pieces. I am finding now what's most motivating and exciting is trying to make sure that we're doing things that people with aphasia find important, and how also to keep the whole science moving forward in this way that's going to have functional, important outcomes. That people with aphasia are going to be able to do what they want to do to the best that they can. Janet: Absolutely! But then there's the scientific challenge of how do you collect the data? How to best observe specific outcome data on performance measures, but also collect the person-centered data. How do you collect data that really can speak to whether you're having a success and whether this might be generalizable or transferable to another person? Liz: I think it's important that we need both. I always say, and some of my collaborators may not like it, but if in the person reported outcome, a person with aphasia is telling us that they feel better and that they are communicating better in life, and those measures should not be optional, those measures to me, a critically important part of seeing this treatment successful. There are different ways to do that and different ways to capture their perspective. For example, if trained reading words moved this much and if the patient reported outcome change is greater, then I find that to be a success. If the reverse happens, I find treatment not successful. If my probes showed gain but the person with aphasia does not see it or feel it, then I don't find treatment to be a success. So, I think it's really important that persons with aphasia tell us different things, and we need to have many assessments in both of those categories. I think, when possible. Janet: You're absolutely right. When you think about many of the treatments that we're doing, they are not necessarily easy, and they take time, and you have to stay the course. I think you know, I've been interested for a number of years in motivation and engagement, and what keeps people motivated and doing what they're doing. If you've got a treatment that you can see over time, small changes in your specific reading outcomes, but not so much of a change in the person centered outcomes, or person reported outcomes, how do you know the person is still really engaged and motivated and willing to slog through your treatment in order to get to the place that you hope they will? I think you're correct when you're assessing the importance of the person reported outcome. Liz: Yeah, that's good. And then that's a whole other like measure in itself, right? The key of motivation we've talked about in some of the trials. The one person who didn't do very well, and just in our conversation, sometimes it for different reasons. That wasn't motivating for that person. There's that's a whole very important piece that a lot of us have a lot of room to improve in how we capture that and support that. Janet: Which is a challenge when we're trying to devise treatments for, say, reading or anything that can be applicable to a wide range of persons with aphasia. Kudos to you for meeting that challenge as best you can. Liz: We're working on it. But I do really think that it's changing. Sometimes I feel like there are impairment-based people and life participation people, and I don't think it needs to be that way. It’s fine if we only study one area. We can't all study everything, but I think as a whole they complement each other very well. And so I'm just excited to see that it seems like things are moving in a really exciting way, where people who study aphasia in various different ways now seem to have the main outcome, asking is this going to help people with aphasia feel better, communicate better, and look forward to something different in life? I think we're all seeing that that's what we're supposed to be doing, and how we do it is going to look really different, and that's great. I think we're moving in the right direction. Janet: Very well said. I think, and you obviously do as well, that literacy and reading skills are crucially important to individuals with aphasia in so many ways, such as life skills reading or pleasure reading. Acknowledging that we all have different skill levels and preferences, what are some ideas that you might have identified that speech-language pathologists can use to support the literacy and reading desires and activities for a person with aphasia? Liz: Great question. I think my answer is very similar to the question about what can SLPs do to help support friendship? I think being person centered. You said earlier, right, we all have different interests. Somebody might say it's not one of my goals and I really don't want to spend a lot of time on this. But just having those conversations and person-centered measures and using supported conversation we can easily gather important information. There are some really good patient-reported outcome measures that ask about reading, so maybe use some of those existing tools. The Comprehensive Aphasia Disability Questionnaire has a nice scale that talks about different aspects of reading as well as other aspects of language. But at the minimum, I think finding a way, even just to draw your own scale and then trying to find out in their life, what are different activities where they want to or need to engage, right? Texting, email, restaurant. I mean, we think about it, we're reading all the time throughout life. So, I think finding the reading need is a general interest and then getting really specific is one way to do it. Another thing could be, as I mentioned before, our brain relies on similar structures and language networks when we are engaging in spoken language and written language. So oftentimes improving our reading and writing improves our spoken abilities and vice versa. So even if it's not the main goal in treatment, for example if the main outcome might be word retrieval, I really believe multimodal learning is important. If, after you've gone through what you want to do say writing it, having them repeat it, maybe copy it, even though that's not the main goal, and it's not slowing the therapy, if it's working for you and your client, then I really think, at the minimum, using written language to support spoken language has a good role. I also think the opposite can be true using spoken language to support written language. So I do think that it's important that we know we are addressing all of language, and that that language skills really do usually move up and down together in aphasia. Janet: Well said, again. Liz, thank you so very much for joining me today in this fascinating look into friendship, literacy, reading and aphasia. And again, hearty congratulations to you on being named Tavistock, Distinguished Scholar. On behalf of Aphasia Access, I wish you well in your research and clinical efforts, and thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. At this point, I'd also like to thank our listeners for supporting Aphasia Access Conversations by listening to our podcast, including this fascinating discussion with Liz Madden. Liz: Thanks so much, Janet, I feel like you could just chat with you all day. Thank you again for giving me a chance to highlight some of my work. Also I want to thank everyone with aphasia who has participated in my projects, all my students and collaborators, Aphasia Access and the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia. Thanks again. Janet: For references and resources mentioned in today's podcast, please see our Show Notes. They are available on our website, www.aphasiaaccess.org. There you can also become a member of our organization, browse our growing library of materials, and find out about the Aphasia Access Academy. If you have an idea for a future podcast episode, email us at [email protected]. For Aphasia Access Conversations, I’m Janet Patterson, thanking you again for your ongoing support of Aphasia Access. References Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). Social networks in adult life and a preliminary examination of the convoy model. Journal of Gerontology, 42(5), 519–527. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/42.5.519">https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/42.5.519</a> Archer, B.A., Azios, J.H., Douglas, N.F., Strong, K.A., Worrall, L.D. & Simmons-Mackie, N.F. (2024). “I Could Not Talk . . . She Did Everything . . . She’s Now My Sister”: People with Aphasia’s Perspectives on Friends Who Stuck Around. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 33, 349–368. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00205">https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00205</a> Azios, J.H., Strong, K.A., Archer, B, Douglas, N.F., Simmons-Mackie, N. & Worrall, L. (2021). Friendship matters: A research agenda for aphasia. Aphasiology, 36(3),317-336. <a href="https://10.1080/02687038.2021.1873908">https://10.1080/02687038.2021.1873908</a> Madden, E.B., Bislick, L., Wallace, S.E., Therrien, M.C.S. & Goff-Albritton, R. (2023). Aphasia and friendship: Stroke survivors’ self-reported changes over time. Journal of Communication Disorders, 103, 106330. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2023.106330">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2023.106330</a> Madden, E., Conway, T., Henry, M., Spencer, K., Yorkston, K., & Kendall, D. (2018). The relationship between non-orthographic language abilities and reading performance in chronic aphasia: An exploration of the primary systems hypothesis. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 61, 3038-3054. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0058">https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0058</a> Madden, E. B., Torrence, J., & Kendall, D. (2020). Cross-modal generalization of anomia treatment to reading in aphasia. Aphasiology, 35, 875-899. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2020.1734529">https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2020.1734529</a> Purdy, M., Coppens, P., Madden, E. B., Freed, D., Mozeiko, J., Patterson, J., & Wallace, S. (2018). Reading comprehension treatment in aphasia: A systematic review. Aphasiology, 33(6), 629–651. <a href= "https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2018.1482405">https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2018.1482405</a> Strong, K.A., Douglas, N.F., Johnson, R., Silverman, M., Azios, J.H. & Archer, B. (2023). Stakeholder-engaged research: What our friendship in aphasia team learned about processes and pitfalls. Topics in Language Disorders, 43(1), 43-56. <a href= "https://10.1097/TLD.0000000000000302">https://10.1097/TLD.0000000000000302</a> Therrien, M., Madden, E. B., Bislick, L., & Wallace, S. (2021). Aphasia and Friendship: The Role and Perspectives of Speech-Language Pathologists. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 30(5), 2228-2240. Resources Stroke Social Network Scale reference and materials: <a href="https://cityaccess.org/tests/ssns/">https://cityaccess.org/tests/ssns/</a> Aphasia Access Conversations Episode #119 - Finding the person in front of aphasia: A conversation with Lauren Bislick

Similar Podcasts

Swallow Your Pride Podcast

Theresa Richard, MA, CCC-SLP, BCS-S

Dateline NBC

NBC News

Speech Scope: A MedBridge Podcast

Medbridge

Crime Junkie

audiochuck

Science Vs

Spotify Studios

This American Life

Hidden Brain

Hidden Brain, Shankar Vedantam

The Mel Robbins Podcast

Mel Robbins

Unlocking Us with Brené Brown

Vox Media Podcast Network

Stuff You Should Know

iHeartPodcasts

The Daily

The New York Times

Up First

NPR

Stroke Stories

Call Me Back - with Dan Senor

Ark Media

Pod Save America

Crooked Media

Legal Disclaimer

Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.

All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.

We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at [email protected] for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.

By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.

Recent articles