File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

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

TitleLet’s call it “aphasia”: Rationales for eliminating the term “dysphasia”
Authors
Keywordsdysphasia
Terminology
aphasia
stroke
Issue Date2016
Citation
International Journal of Stroke, 2016, v. 11, n. 8, p. 848-851 How to Cite?
AbstractHealth 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.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/307191
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 6.3
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.800
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWorrall, Linda-
dc.contributor.authorSimmons-Mackie, Nina-
dc.contributor.authorWallace, Sarah J.-
dc.contributor.authorRose, Tanya-
dc.contributor.authorBrady, Marian C.-
dc.contributor.authorKong, Anthony Pak Hin-
dc.contributor.authorMurray, Laura-
dc.contributor.authorHallowell, Brooke-
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-03T06:22:07Z-
dc.date.available2021-11-03T06:22:07Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Stroke, 2016, v. 11, n. 8, p. 848-851-
dc.identifier.issn1747-4930-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/307191-
dc.description.abstractHealth 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.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Stroke-
dc.subjectdysphasia-
dc.subjectTerminology-
dc.subjectaphasia-
dc.subjectstroke-
dc.titleLet’s call it “aphasia”: Rationales for eliminating the term “dysphasia”-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1747493016654487-
dc.identifier.pmid27384070-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84990855464-
dc.identifier.volume11-
dc.identifier.issue8-
dc.identifier.spage848-
dc.identifier.epage851-
dc.identifier.eissn1747-4949-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000386008400007-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats