Background: Spiritual aspects of aphasia rehabilitation are poorly understood, though identified within adjustment. Existing spiritual health assessments have not been used with people with aphasia, and no structured program to facilitate intervention has been documented, despite acknowledgements that spirituality is important in health and wellbeing and distinct from quality of life and mental health.

Aims: Mixed methods were used to investigate the accessibility and acceptability of a spiritual health assessment (SHALOM) and WELLHEAD, a toolkit originated by Mumby for spiritual health assessment and intervention, using the religiously neutral dimensions of “WIDE, LONG, HIGH, and DEEP”.

Method: A Steering group (five people with aphasia) shaped the feasibility study cyclically, agreeing that “Meaning and purpose” defined spirituality, and selecting SHALOM. WELLHEAD was modified collaboratively with the Steering group and Hospital Chaplain. A convenience sample of 10 people with aphasia (discharged from therapy) represented diverse aphasia histories, ages, and religious backgrounds. Participants completed a two-hour session using SHALOM, the WELLHEAD toolkit and a feedback questionnaire within video-recorded interviews. Quantitative results from all three components were integrated with a qualitative thematic analysis in NVivo 11 including numerical and descriptive summaries verified by the participants, feedback interview transcripts and field notes with reflections. The thematic analysis was systematically and independently verified by a co-researcher. Feedback from participants was further verified by incorporating their comments from reviewing the overall findings.

Results: Quantitative and qualitative feedback evaluated the materials positively. Thematic analysis provided evidence of the accessibility, acceptability, and positive impact of WELLHEAD irrespective of aphasia severity or aetiology, and religious background. “Belief”, “Faith”, and “Religion” were disambiguated. SHALOM was also linguistically and cognitively accessible with communication support even for those with severe aphasia. Scores from WELLHEAD and SHALOM were compared and set into the context of wider standardisation of SHALOM, providing the first evidence of spiritual health measures in participants with aphasia.

Conclusions: This preliminary work lays foundations for spiritual assessment and intervention in aphasia. Establishing the psychometric properties of SHALOM and WELLHEAD in people with aphasia requires a larger sample. Additional study of intervention is proposed, with clear potential for wider application of WELLHEAD in diverse settings and populations.

背景：失语症康复的精神方面虽然在调整中已确定，但人们对其了解甚少。失语症患者没有使用现有的精神健康评估，尽管有公认的精神健康对健康和福祉很重要，并且与生活质量和精神健康截然不同，但尚无有关促进干预的结构化计划的记录。

目的：混合方法用于研究精神健康评估（SHALOM）和WELLHEAD（由Mumby发起的用于精神健康评估和干预的工具包）的可访问性和可接受性，使用宗教宽容的维度：“宽，长，高和深” ”。

方法：指导小组（五个失语症患者）周期性地进行了可行性研究，同意“含义和目的”定义了灵性，并选择了SHALOM。WELLHEAD与指导小组和医院牧师合作进行了修改。随机抽样的10名失语症患者（从治疗中退出）代表了不同的失语史，年龄和宗教背景。参与者使用SHALOM，WELLHEAD工具包和录像采访中的反馈调查表完成了为时两个小时的会议。在NVivo 11中，将这三个部分的定量结果与定性主题分析相结合，其中包括参与者验证的数字和描述性摘要，反馈访谈记录和反映出来的现场笔记。主题分析由一位共同研究者系统地独立验证。通过结合他们对总体研究结果的评论，进一步验证了参与者的反馈。

结果：定量和定性反馈对材料进行了积极评价。主题分析提供了WELLHEAD的可及性，可接受性和积极影响的证据，而不论失语症的严重程度，病因和宗教背景如何。“信仰”，“信仰”和“宗教”被消除了歧义。即使对于患有严重失语症的人，也可以在语言和认知上获得沟通支持和语言支持。比较了WELLHEAD和SHALOM的得分并将其设置为更广泛的SHALOM标准化背景，这为失语症参与者的精神健康措施提供了第一个证据。

结论：这项初步工作为失语症的精神评估和干预奠定了基础。在失语症患者中建立SHALOM和WELLHEAD的心理测量特性需要更大的样本量。提出了其他干预措施的研究，具有明显的潜力，可以将WELLHEAD广泛应用于不同的环境和人群。