Purpose: We aim to establish best practice guidelines for the design, facilitation, and sustainability of online support groups for people with aphasia (PWA). It explores the benefits, challenges, and psychological considerations of virtual aphasia interventions. Method: The recommendations presented were developed through a collaborative consensus process by our writing team, which was informed by a comprehensive review of current literature, insights from international experts, and practical experiences across various settings. This process involved meetings held between June 2023 and April 2025, focusing on the “Community of Practice related to online aphasia support.” These discussions examined the types, goals, and key features of online support groups—highlighting person-centered approaches, facilitation skills, and cultural responsiveness—and considered technological, logistical, and funding factors critical for successful implementation. Guided by principles of evidence-based practice and consensus building, the development produced practical recommendations that reflect diverse perspectives and best practices in both face-to-face and online aphasia support. Results: Online aphasia support groups enhance accessibility, foster peer support, and promote social participation, contributing positively to psychological well-being. This tutorial identifies common challenges (e.g., technological barriers, engagement difficulties, and resource constraints), offering evidence-based strategies for mitigation. It underscores the importance of tailored facilitator training and sustainable funding models adapted to diverse contexts. Conclusions: Online aphasia support groups are valuable tools to improve long-term communication and psychosocial outcomes for PWA. Their success depends on careful planning, skilled facilitation, and inclusive practices. Ongoing research, international collaboration, and adaptable funding strategies are vital to optimize their impact and expand access globally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: