Let’s call it “aphasia”: rationales for eliminating the term “dysphasia”

Worrall, Linda, Simmons-Mackie, Nina, Wallace, Sarah J., Rose, Tanya, Brady, Marian C., Kong, Anthony Pak Hin, Murray, Laura and Hallowell, Brooke (2016) Let’s call it “aphasia”: rationales for eliminating the term “dysphasia”. International Journal of Stroke, 11 8: 848-851. doi:10.1177/1747493016654487


Author Worrall, Linda
Simmons-Mackie, Nina
Wallace, Sarah J.
Rose, Tanya
Brady, Marian C.
Kong, Anthony Pak Hin
Murray, Laura
Hallowell, Brooke
Title Let’s call it “aphasia”: rationales for eliminating the term “dysphasia”
Journal name International Journal of Stroke   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1747-4930
1747-4949
Publication date 2016-07-06
Year available 2016
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1177/1747493016654487
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 11
Issue 8
Start page 848
End page 851
Total pages 1
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher Sage Publications
Language eng
Abstract Health professionals, researchers, and policy makers often consider the two terms aphasia and dysphasia to be synonymous. The aim of this article is to argue the merits of the exclusive use of the term aphasia and present a strategy for creating change through institutions such as the WHO-ICD. Our contention is that one term avoids confusion, speech-language pathologists prefer aphasia, scholarly publications indicate a preference for the term aphasia, stroke clinical guidelines indicate a preference for the term aphasia, consumer organizations use the title aphasia in their name and on their websites, and languages other than English use a term similar to aphasia. The use of the term dysphasia in the broader medical community may stem from the two terms being used interchangeably in the ICD10. Aphasia United http://www.shrs.uq.edu.au/aphasiaunited , an international movement for uniting the voice of all stakeholders in aphasia within an international context, will seek to eliminate the use of the term dysphasia.
Formatted abstract
Health professionals, researchers, and policy makers often consider the two terms aphasia and dysphasia to be synonymous. The aim of this article is to argue the merits of the exclusive use of the term aphasia and present a strategy for creating change through institutions such as the WHO-ICD. Our contention is that one term avoids confusion, speech-language pathologists prefer aphasia, scholarly publications indicate a preference for the term aphasia, stroke clinical guidelines indicate a preference for the term aphasia, consumer organizations use the title aphasia in their name and on their websites, and languages other than English use a term similar to aphasia. The use of the term dysphasia in the broader medical community may stem from the two terms being used interchangeably in the ICD10. Aphasia United http://www.shrs.uq.edu.au/aphasiaunited, an international movement for uniting the voice of all stakeholders in aphasia within an international context, will seek to eliminate the use of the term dysphasia.
Keyword Terminology
Stroke
Aphasia
Dysphasia
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sat, 20 Aug 2016, 18:33:37 EST by Sarah Wallace on behalf of School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences