Multi-Modality Aphasia Treatment (M-MAT) is an effective group intervention for post-stroke aphasia. M-MAT employs interactive card games and the modalities of gesture, drawing, reading, and writing to improve spoken language. However, there are challenges to implementation of group interventions such as M-MAT, particularly for those who cannot travel or live in rural areas. To maximise access to this effective treatment, we aimed to adapt M-MAT to telehealth format (M-MAT Tele). The Human-Centred Design Framework was utilized to guide the adaptation approach. We identified the intended context of use (outpatient/community rehabilitation) and the stakeholders (clinicians, people with aphasia, health service funders). People with aphasia and practising speech pathologists were invited to co-design M-MAT Tele in a series of iterative workshops, to ensure the end product was user-friendly and clinically feasible. The use of co-design allowed us to understand the hardware, software and other constraints and preferences of end users. In particular, clinicians (n = 3) required software compatible with a range of telehealth platforms and people with aphasia (n = 3) valued solutions with minimal technical demands and costs for participants. Co-design within the Human-Centred Design Framework led to a telehealth solution compatible with all major telehealth platforms, with minimal hardware or software requirements. Pilot testing is underway to confirm acceptability of M-MAT Tele to clinicians and people with aphasia, aiming to provide an effective, accessible tool for aphasia therapy in telehealth settings.

High-intensity Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-Plus) and Multi-Modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) are effective interventions for chronic post-stroke aphasia but challenging to provide in clinical practice. Providing these interventions may be more feasible at lower intensities, but comparative evidence is lacking. We therefore explored feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the treatments at a lower intensity.
A multisite, single-blinded, randomized Phase II trial was conducted within the Phase III COMPARE trial. Groups of participants with chronic aphasia from the usual care arm of the COMPARE trial were randomized to M-MAT or CIAT-Plus, delivered at the same dose as the COMPARE trial but at lower intensity (6 hours/week × 5 weeks rather than 15 hours/week × 2 weeks). Blinded assessors measured aphasia severity (Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient), word retrieval, connected speech, multimodal communication, functional communication, and quality of life immediately post interventions and after 12 weeks. Feasibility and acceptability were explored.
Of 70 eligible participants, 77% consented to the trial; 78% of randomized participants completed intervention and 98% of assessment visits were conducted. Fatigue and distress ratings were low with no related withdrawals. Adverse events related to the trial (n = 4) were mild in severity. Statistically significant treatment effects were demonstrated on word retrieval and functional communication and both interventions were equally effective.
Low-moderateintensity CIAT-Plus and M-MAT were feasible and acceptable. Both interventions show preliminary efficacy at a low-moderate intensity. These results support a powered trial investigating these interventions at a low-moderate intensity.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) shows promise in improving speech production in post-stroke aphasia. Limited evidence suggests pairing rTMS with speech therapy may result in greater improvements. Twenty stroke survivors (>6 months post-stroke) were randomized to receive either sham rTMS plus multi-modality aphasia therapy (M-MAT) or rTMS plus M-MAT. For the first time, we demonstrate that rTMS combined with M-MAT is feasible, with zero adverse events and minimal attrition. Both groups improved significantly over time on all speech and language outcomes. However, improvements did not differ between rTMS or sham. We found that rTMS and sham groups differed in lesion location, which may explain speech and language outcomes as well as unique patterns of BOLD signal change within each group. We offer practical considerations for future studies and conclude that while combination therapy of rTMS plus M-MAT in chronic post-stroke aphasia is safe and feasible, personalized intervention may be necessary.