Methods to Enhance Verbal Communication between Individuals with Alzheimer's Disease and Their Formal and Informal Caregivers: A Systematic Review

Table 3

Summary of results.

Study	Communication outcomes
Acton et al. (2007) [89]	Number of words and number of words per topic generated during a 15-minute conversation with a nurse.
	Pre- and postapplication of the individualized prescriptions:
	Number of words: mean (SD) = 1052 (552), 1049 (492) NS
	Number of words per topic: mean (SD) = 52.7 (32.9), 78.8 (43.7) *𝑃<.04
Allen-Burge et al. (2001) [88]	Computer assisted real-time observational data gathered for five 30-minute intervals at between 10 : 00–14 : 00 hrs and 17 : 00–19 : 00 hours over 5 days.
	Pre and post intervention and at 1-month followup:
	% of time coherent speech: 4.9, 8.4, 4.1
	% of time talking with others: 1.0, 3.7, 1.4
	Number of positive statements/hour: 1, 6, 4
Bourgeois (1990) [27]	Only 1 of the 3 spouses reported improvement in his wife’s communication.
Bourgeois (1992) [90]	3 of 6 caregivers noted positive outcomes.
Bourgeois and Mason (1996) [24]	All four participants demonstrated some increase in the number of factual statements made. All 4 reduced the frequency of ambiguous statements produced. Two demonstrated a decrease in the frequency of unintelligible utterances produced and 1 demonstrated a slight decrease in perseverative utterances. One participant showed a slight increase in error utterances.
Bourgeois et al. (2001) [25] Dijkstra et al. (2002) [87]	Number and types of utterances during 5-minute conversation effect size and significance (*𝑃<.05):
	utterances 0.60*, novel statements 0.26, ambiguous statements −0.21, questions 0.16, perseverance 0.04, errors 0.37, unintelligible 0.39, informative 2.71*, uninformative 0.19.
	words 0.26, unique words 0.31, information units 0.25, global coherence 0.22, local coherence 0.39, empty phrases −0.13, repetitions 0.31, indefinite words −0.17.
Burgio et al. (2001) [30]	No significant difference for group × time for coherent verbal interaction. Effect size not calculable.
Cott et al. (2002) [91]	Talk versus control Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for Adults subscale (FACS) effect size and significance (*𝑃<.05):
	Talk versus control: FACS social communication −0.24; communication of basic need −0.24; overall communication −0.23
	Walk and talk versus control: FACS social communication−0.18; communication of basic need −0.21; overall communication −0.11
Gentry & Fisher (2007) [92]	All 3 participants demonstrated less topic changes when the communication partner used indirect repair than they did when the partner used direct repair. Significance not testable due to small sample (𝑛=3).
Hoester et al. (2001) [93]	2 of the 4 participants demonstrated increase in on-topic statements and decrease in off-topic statements. Effect of intervention on requests and assertions unclear due to lack of stable baseline.
	2 of 4 caregivers noted improvement in communication.
McCallion et al. (1999) [94]	Geriatric Indices of Positive Behavior (GIPB) Verbal behavior subscale effect size and significance (*𝑃<.05): 3 months 0.22, 6 months 0.21
Pietro & Boczko (1998) [95]	Greater staff-rated Communication Outcome Measure of Functional Independence (COMFI) Scale effect size and significance (*𝑃<.05) score change 2.36 *; final score 0.57.
Spilkin & Bethlehem (2003) [96]	Increased maximal turns, improved topic maintenance noted post intervention. Caregiver reported improved communication.