Search

Background: Early language delay is exacerbated by social disadvantage. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self‐perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. Methods used to achieve successful health outcomes in socially disadvantaged clinical populations may need enhancing. Aims: To compare the impact of standard parent‐based intervention (PBI) to enhanced PBI for young children with speech, language and communication needs (SCLN) and their families living in more socially disadvantaged populations. Methods and Procedures: A multicentre clustered blind randomised controlled trial was used to compare the effect of parent‐based group interventions to improve early language development with children (mean age 27.5 months) from more socially disadvantaged populations with an expressive vocabulary of 40 or less single words. Intervention sessions were delivered by a speech and language therapist, over a 20‐week period. Participants received one of two interventions: (1) Standard Care – indirect group PBI – (PBI) (2) Enhanced Care: indirect group enhanced PBI – (EPBI). Both standardised and non‐standardised measures were used as outcomes. Parent engagement in the intervention was captured through analysis of attendance and the Parent Activation Measure – Speech & Language Therapy (PAM‐SLT) (Insignia Health, 2014). The PAM measures a person's knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their own health and well‐being (NHS England, 2018). In this study, activation referred to parents' knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their child's language development. Outcomes and Results: One hundred fifty‐five participants were randomised at baseline. Children in both groups made significant improvements in the outcome on MacArthur‐Bates Communicative Development Inventories Sentence Length, from pre‐intervention to post‐intervention and 6 months post‐intervention (p < 0.05). Changes in vocabulary and expressive language skills were more equivocal, showing wide variation in confidence intervals for both groups. Where parents attended at least one intervention session almost all effect sizes were in favour of the EPBI intervention. Parents' activation levels significantly increased for both groups (EPBI p < 0.001, PBI p = 0.003), with a moderate effect size in favour of EPBI (Hedges' G 0.37, confidence interval –0.02 to 0.76), although wide variation was found. Conclusions and Implications: This trial provides some evidence of facilitating the language development of children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting caregivers. However, we found variation in outcomes; some children made excellent progress, whilst others did not. Further exploration of parent engagement and its relationship to child language outcomes will be valuable to understanding more about mechanisms of change in interventions that involve parents. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) have a knock‐on effect on emotional well‐being, school readiness, literacy and school attainment, putting children at increased risk of long‐term consequences such as poor literacy, mental health problems and unemployment. In disadvantaged areas, the prevalence of language difficulties is higher than elsewhere. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self‐perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: Children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas can make improvements in their language development through parent intervention, although wide individual variation was found. There was some evidence that children achieve better outcomes with EPBI, which employed an interagency collaborative approach. Parent's engagement (activation levels) increased significantly over time with intervention, with the increase twice as big for EPBI. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This trial provides some evidence that it is possible to facilitate the language development of children from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting their caregivers. Further research would be useful to determine whether increases in parent engagement are related to adherence to intervention and change in child outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The articulatory accuracy of patients with dysarthria is one of the most affected speech dimensions with a high impact on speech intelligibility. Behavioural treatments of articulation can either involve direct or indirect approaches. The latter have been thoroughly investigated and are generally appreciated for their almost immediate effects on articulation and intelligibility. The number of studies on (short‐term) direct articulation therapy is limited. Aims: To investigate the effects of short‐term, boost articulation therapy (BArT) on speech intelligibility in patients with chronic or progressive dysarthria and the effect of severity of dysarthria on the outcome. Methods & Procedures: The study consists of a two‐group pre‐/post‐test design to assess speech intelligibility at phoneme and sentence level and during spontaneous speech, automatic speech and reading a phonetically balanced text. A total of 17 subjects with mild to severe dysarthria participated in the study and were randomly assigned to either a patient‐tailored, intensive articulatory drill programme or an intensive minimal pair training. Both training programmes were based on the principles of motor learning. Each training programme consisted of five sessions of 45 min completed within one week. Outcomes & Results: Following treatment, a statistically significant increase of mean group intelligibility was shown at phoneme and sentence level, and in automatic sequences. This was supported by an acoustic analysis that revealed a reduction in formant centralization ratio. Within specific groups of severity, large and moderate positive effect sizes with Cohen's d were demonstrated. Conclusions & Implications: BArT successfully improves speech intelligibility in patients with chronic or progressive dysarthria at different levels of the impairment. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectBehavioural treatment of articulation in patients with dysarthria mainly involves indirect strategies, which have shown positive effects on speech intelligibility. However, there is limited evidence on the short‐term effects of direct articulation therapy at the segmental level of speech. This study investigates the effectiveness of BArT on speech intelligibility in patients with chronic or progressive dysarthria at all severity levels.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThe intensive and direct articulatory therapy programmes developed and applied in this study intend to reduce the impairment instead of compensating it. This approach results in a significant improvement of speech intelligibility at different dysarthria severity levels in a short period of time while contributing to exploit and develop all available residual motor skills in persons with dysarthria.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?The improvements in intelligibility demonstrate the effectiveness of a BArT at the segmental level of speech. This makes it to be considered a suitable approach in the treatment of patients with chronic or progressive dysarthria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A total of 68% of pre‐school children with cleft palate have speech problems requiring speech therapy. There is a lack of access to regular targeted therapy. Parent training leads to positive outcomes in early communication skills in cleft palate and non‐cleft speech disorders. Connected health has been used to address inadequate access to therapy, providing intervention to those who would not otherwise receive therapy. Aims: To evaluate the speech, activity and participation outcomes of Parent Led, Therapist Supervised, Articulation Therapy (PLAT) compared with routine speech therapy intervention in parent–child dyads. Methods & Procedures: A total of 44 children, aged 2.9–7.5 years, were included in a two‐centre, two‐phase randomized controlled trial. Informed consent and assent were obtained. Participants and speech and language therapists (SLTs) were unblinded to the groups. Parents, in the parent‐trained group (n = 23), attended 2 days' training, received a detailed speech therapy programme, and undertook intervention over 12 weeks supported by the cleft specialist SLT using FaceTime and one face‐to‐face session. In the control arm (n = 21), parent–child dyads received six therapy sessions over 12 weeks with a research SLT, comparable with usual care. Speech recordings were undertaken pre‐ and post‐intervention. Percent consonant correct (PCC) was analysed by external SLTs blinded to the time and group. Activity and participation were measured using the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) and Focus on Outcomes for Children Under Six (FOCUS) questionnaire. Outcomes & Results: There was no evidence of an interaction between Time and Group or an overall statistical difference between groups for PCC scores. There was a statistically significant difference over time for both groups (words: p < 0.002; confidence interval (CI) = 9.38–16.27; d = 0.57; sentences: p < 0.002; CI = 16.04–25.97; d = 0.23). Effect sizes were medium for words and small for sentences. For intelligibility and participation, there was no evidence of an interaction between Time and Group or an overall statistical difference between groups. A statistically significant difference over time was found for intelligibility (F = 29.97, d.f. = 1, 42, p < 0.001, 95 % CI = 1.45–3.15 d = 0.46) and for participation (F = 14.19, d.f. = 1, 41, p < 0.001 95% CI = 7.63–25.03; d = 0.36) with FOCUS results indicating clinically meaningful (parent‐led group) and significant (control group) change in participation. Conclusions & Implications: PLAT can be as effective as routine care in changing speech, activity and participation outcomes for children with cleft palate, when supported by a specialist cleft SLT using connected health. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectOver 50% of children with cleft palate require speech therapy. However, there is a lack of timely, accessible speech therapy services in the UK and Ireland. Previous studies have shown that parents can deliver therapy effectively, and that connected health can support the delivery of speech therapy. This study aims to provide evidence that parent‐led therapy with the supervision of a specialist cleft therapist using FaceTime is effective.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis randomized controlled trial indicates that parents can be trained to deliver therapy for children with cleft palate speech disorders, under the supervision of an SLT. This approach results in improved speech, activity and participation outcomes similar to routine care.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?This study indicates that both parent‐led articulation therapy and routine care showed meaningful gains in speech, activity and participation, and that parent‐led articulation therapy when supported by a cleft SLT using connected health could be an additional service delivery model for children with cleft palate speech disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background While practitioners are increasingly asked to be mindful of the evidence base of intervention programmes, evidence from rigorous trials for the effectiveness of interventions that promote oral language abilities in the early years is sparse. Aims To evaluate the effectiveness of a language intervention programme for children identified as having poor oral language skills in preschool classes. Methods & Procedures A randomized controlled trial was carried out in 13 UK nursery schools. In each nursery, eight children ( N = 104, mean age = 3 years 11 months) with the poorest performance on standardized language measures were selected to take part. All but one child were randomly allocated to either an intervention ( N = 52) or a waiting control group ( N = 51). The intervention group received a 15-week oral language programme in addition to their standard nursery curriculum. The programme was delivered by trained teaching assistants and aimed to foster vocabulary knowledge, narrative and listening skills. Outcomes & Results Initial results revealed significant differences between the intervention and control group on measures of taught vocabulary. No group differences were found on any standardized language measure; however, there were gains of moderate effect size in listening comprehension. Conclusions & Implications The study suggests that an intervention, of moderate duration and intensity, for small groups of preschool children successfully builds vocabulary knowledge, but does not generalize to non-taught areas of language. The findings strike a note of caution about implementing language interventions of moderate duration in preschool settings. The findings also highlight the importance of including a control group in intervention studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]