Better Conversations With Parkinson's: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Novel Communication Partner Training Telehealth Intervention.
Philippa Clay, Suzanne Beeke, Lucie Hogger and 5 others
A telehealth communication-partner training programme for Parkinson's was acceptable to 7 dyads and easy to deliver, but this is a feasibility study — it does not show the programme improves conversation.
Recruitment was slow (7 of 69 invited).
Key findings
1All 7 dyads attended all six 15-minute Zoom sessions, completed every pre- and post-intervention measure, and recorded all required 15-minute conversation videos, despite some reported difficulty making the videos.
2Recruitment was a significant challenge: only 7 of 69 invited dyads (10%) took part over 10 months, missing the target of 10–12 dyads. The most common reasons for declining were lack of an available communication partner, low confidence with technology, and concern about time commitment.
3Most participants found the programme acceptable and reported conversations became easier, but several still wanted traditional voice/volume therapy alongside it, and one dyad felt it had not helped their speech at all.
to read the rest of this summary — three full summaries a month, no card.
Already have an account?
What it does not show
Only 7 dyads from a single NHS site; the authors acknowledge this limits transferability. All participants were White British, from low-deprivation areas, and educated to at least 16 years of age, so the sample does not reflect the broader Parkinson's population. One SLT delivered all sessions and was also a co-developer of the intervention, introducing a clear risk of bias that the authors flag. The recruitment target of 10–12 dyads was not met (7 recruited), and the 10% uptake rate may not be replicable in other settings. No efficacy outcomes are reported; the authors state the outcome measures need refinement before a future trial, so there is no evidence here that BCP improves communication. Five of the seven participants with Parkinson's had not previously received speech and language therapy and were on a waiting list, so the intervention was experienced in the context of unmet need rather than as an add-on. The study was conducted in two recruitment phases separated by a gap (July 2022–January 2023 and November 2023–March 2024) due to the SLT's personal circumstances, which may have affected the sample.
Declared interests
No conflicts of interest declared. Funded by Parkinson's UK.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →