SLPSystematic ReviewInternational journal of language & communication disorders2025

Influence of Speech and Language Therapy on Quality of Life in People With Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Scoping Review.

Mirjam Gauch, Bianca Spelter, Katharina Geschke and 4 others

PMID 40984003

WHAT IT FOUND

Speech therapy for primary progressive aphasia often improves communication confidence, but this does not reliably translate to better quality of life.

Most evidence comes from small case series, so no single therapy is proven to boost wellbeing.

Key findings

01Only three of the nine quantitative studies included in this review reported significant improvements in quality of life.

02Improvements in communication skills or therapy goals do not guarantee an improvement in a patient's perceived quality of life.

03The evidence base is limited by small sample sizes and a lack of high-quality controlled trials, with most studies being case series or descriptive.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The review included only 12 studies, most of which were small case series or descriptive studies with low levels of evidence. Search terms were limited to 'primary progressive aphasia', potentially missing studies using terms like 'semantic dementia'. Only English-language journals were included. There was no registered protocol for this scoping review. The high heterogeneity in QoL measurement tools prevented direct comparison of results across studies.

Declared interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the general trend of 'improved or stable QoL' in these small studies as proof that any specific therapy works. The primary outcome of QoL was often secondary, and significant improvements were found in only three of nine quantitative studies, meaning the evidence for efficacy is weak and inconsistent.

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 →