4.4 Article

Evaluation of quality of life in people with aphasia using a Dutch version of the SAQOL-39

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 173-182

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638280903071867

Keywords

Aphasia; quality of life; social support

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To examine the quality of life (QoL) of people with aphasia and to study the influence of variables such as age, time post onset and (degree of) social support on the QoL of aphasic persons. Method. We compared the scores of an aphasic population (N = 43) with those of a healthy control group (N = 43) and of a group of patients with brain lesions without neurogenic communication disorders (N = 43) on a Dutch version of the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life-scale (SAQoL-39) and on a social support questionnaire. In half of the aphasic group, the SAQoL-39 was re-administered 8 months after the first testing. Results. People with aphasia obtained significantly lower scores for QoL measures compared with both other groups. Especially, communicative and psychosocial factors seem to influence these results. Older people with aphasia scored lower than younger persons and women tend to evaluate their QoL somewhat more negatively than men. Persons who had aphasia for more than 6 months tended to have higher QoL-scores compared with those who had become aphasic more recently. After 8 months, the retested group scored significantly higher on communication and on psychosocial functioning than on first testing. Conclusions. Gathering information on QoL after suffering from stroke and from aphasia can lead to a better understanding of the problems involved. The clinical use of instruments such as the SAQoL-39 can probably contribute to a more patient oriented rehabilitation, whereby the focus not only lie in improving linguistic skills but also on reducing the impairments and the handicaps that accompany aphasia and thus on increasing QoL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available