Search

Background: Speech disorders in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP±L) are complex given the magnitude of influencing factors. Providing intervention to eliminate these speech errors is often challenging. Speech–language pathologists (SLPs) might have negative perceptions of the treatment of children with a CP±L. Aims: To explore how community SLPs perceive and experience the provision of speech intervention to children with a CP±L. Methods & Procedures: A total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 62 years, were included in this study. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted. The interviews were analysed using an inductive thematic approach aiming to identify themes driven by the data. Trustworthiness of the data was achieved by including researcher triangulation (involving three researchers with different research backgrounds) and deviant case analysis of two cases. Outcomes & Results: Initial responses demonstrated that the community SLPs were excited and enthusiastic to treat children with a CP±L. Expanding on these initial reports, however, they revealed that their excitement turned into professional self‐doubt and insecurity when confronted with the treatment challenges inherent with this population. To cope with this self‐doubt, they outlined several responsibilities for the cleft team SLPs. They expressed a strong desire to receive confirmation and approval on their treatment practices from more experienced SLPs (i.e., the cleft team SLPs). Their perceptions were dominated by a polarized thinking pattern. Treatment approaches were divided in categories as 'right' or 'wrong' and 'good' or 'bad'. Conclusions & Implications: The community SLPs are lacking professional confidence when treating children with a CP±L. They put themselves in a subordinate position towards the cleft team SLPs and expect the latter to provide ready‐made answers to problems and questions. This expectation can perhaps be explained by their fear of making mistakes during therapy preventing treatment progress. If they handle in accordance with the experts' advice, they cannot blame themselves in cases where no treatment progress is seen. Educational programmes need to pay more attention to gaining professional confidence (in the search for the most optimal treatment approach for each individual patient) rather than merely focusing on competency‐based learning tools. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Speech disorders in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP±L) are complex given the magnitude of influencing factors. Providing intervention to eliminate these speech errors is often challenging. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study explored how community SLPs' perceive and experience the provision of speech intervention to children with a CP±L. The perceptions of community SLPs are dominated by a polarized thinking pattern. Treatment approaches are divided into categories as "right" or "wrong" and "good" or "bad". They lack professional confidence when they treat children with a CP±L. The community SLPs put themselves in a subordinate position towards the cleft team SLPs and expect the latter to provide ready‐made answers to problems and questions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Educational programs in speech‐language pathology need to pay more attention to gaining professional confidence rather than merely focusing on competency‐based learning tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Paediatric acquired brain injury (ABI) is one of the leading causes of neurodisability in childhood. The long‐term effects of ABI on cognition, behaviour and emotions are well documented. Previous research has found that communication is difficult for adolescents with ABI compared with typically developing peers. Quantitative studies have identified deficits in specific domains of speech and language, but no research studies have sought to capture adolescents' lived experiences of communication or explored the multidimensional nature of this. Aims: To explore adolescents' everyday experiences of communication following ABI. This research also offered adolescents an opportunity to give their views on an issue that has not previously been explored in relation to paediatric ABI. Method & Procedures: A qualitative study was undertaken using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) for in‐depth exploration of the lived experiences of communication following ABI. Participants were recruited from an NHS Trust in England. Six adolescents (aged 11–18 years) participated in semi‐structured interviews. Data analysis followed the guides for IPA. Outcomes & Results: The data revealed three main themes: the social world; communication competence; and life in the classroom. Adolescents experienced communication changes and challenges, which affected functioning and participation. Difficulties with communication affected identity, learning, relationships and confidence. Conclusions & Implications: These findings provide an insight into how communication is experienced in everyday life from the perspectives of adolescents with ABI. The study revealed that adolescents' individual experiences of communication were dependent on contextual factors. Sensitivity to communication changes was associated with the age when the ABI occurred. Difficulties with communication impacted on identity. Negative communication experiences at school affected a sense of belonging; peer group support helped some adolescents to cope with the communication challenges they faced. Further research is needed to explore how participation in communication is affected by paediatric ABI and what could be done to support this. It is recommended that increased attention should be paid by professionals to the psychological impact of communication changes and difficulties experienced by this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing recognition that dysphagia has significant implications for a person's psychological well‐being, social participation and quality of life (QOL). However, a paucity of research exists regarding the clinical management of this area. To inform future research and the development of appropriate and beneficial resources and guidelines, a better understanding of the current practice of speech and language therapists (SLTs) in this area would be useful. This information will highlight current challenges to clinical practice and the ongoing development needs of the profession, which are, as of yet, undocumented. Aims: To determine the practices of SLTs when addressing QOL issues in individuals with dysphagia, the beliefs of SLTs regarding the impact of dysphagia on QOL, the current trends in assessing and managing QOL in dysphagia, and if variations in beliefs and practices in this area exist. Methods & Procedures: An anonymous cross‐sectional, non‐experimental survey study was used. The survey consisted of 18 questions exploring participants' beliefs and opinions regarding dysphagia and QOL, current clinical practice in the area, perceived facilitators and barriers, and education, training and development needs. The survey was created on Survey Monkey and disseminated by e‐mail link to SLT professional bodies. Purposive and snowball sampling were used and participants self‐selected based on the information provided alongside the e‐mail link. Inclusion criteria for the study were a qualification in speech and language therapy, proficiency in the English language, and access to a computer with the internet. Outcomes & Results: A total of 148 SLTs working across the UK, Ireland and South Africa completed the survey. Over 90% of respondents believe that dysphagia has a negative impact on QOL, but only 25% are currently satisfied with the amount of clinical time they can dedicate to this area. Staffing, resources, a lack of best‐practice guidelines and disease‐specific QOL assessment tools were cited as contributing factors. A number of facilitators and barriers to best practice were also highlighted. Based on these findings, professional development actions for the future are suggested. Conclusions & Implications: SLTs believe they have an important role to play in supporting QOL issues in dysphagia. However, it is reported that the area is currently under‐developed, under‐resourced and under‐supported. Increased awareness raising of the role of SLT, alongside the development of best‐practice guidelines and disease‐specific QOL assessment tools, will enhance the quality of care that can be offered in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The increase in the number of reported conversation partner programmes for conversation partners of people with aphasia demonstrates increased awareness of partner needs and the positive effect of trained partners on the communicative abilities of the person with aphasia. Predominantly small-scale studies describe the effectiveness of conversation partner training (CPT) and how partners perceive this training. The view of partners on this service commission remains largely unknown. Aims To explore the experiences of partners of people with aphasia with a CPT programme when it was newly introduced into rehabilitation settings. Methods & Procedures Seventeen partners of people with aphasia were interviewed using a semi-structured format about their experience with Partners of Aphasic Clients Conversation Training (PACT). Transcribed interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results Four categories representative of the practical nature and individual tailoring of PACT were identified: engaging with PACT; learning from PACT; reflecting on behaviour and emotions; and experiences with earlier speech and language therapy (SLT). Two themes were identified cutting across all categories: the nature of communication is difficult to grasp; and balancing roles as partner, carer and client. Conclusions & Implications Partners appreciated the training programme once their initial lack of awareness of the interactive nature of communication had been addressed. SLTs need to be clear about the collaborative nature of conversations and what can be offered within the rehabilitation trajectory to address conversation alongside language training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]