Search

Background: The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) is a patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure the extent of interference, or difficulty, experienced by adults with communication disorders participating in their day‐to‐day communication activities. To date, there is limited evidence regarding sensitivity of the CPIB for capturing change with intervention in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine the following measurement properties of the CPIB in PwPD who received community‐based, standard care, speech‐language therapy focusing on motor speech concerns: Change over time between treatment and observation groups, comparison to patient‐defined ideal and satisfactory targets, comparison of static short form to computerised adaptive testing (CAT), comparison of self to proxy‐rated scores, and comparison to other common PROMs. Methods and Procedures: Forty‐six PwPD (20 treatment/26 observation) completed data collection upon enrolment (pre‐treatment) and 6 months later. In addition to the CPIB, PROMs included the Voice Handicap Index 10‐item short form (VHI‐10), PROMIS Global Health‐Related Quality of Life, Levels of Speech Usage, self‐rated speech severity, and Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9). Participants also engaged in qualitative interviews. Forty‐four family members completed proxy CPIB ratings. Outcomes and Results: There were no significant differences between treatment and observation groups on the CPIB pre‐treatment, but there were significant differences post‐treatment. The differences appeared to be largely due to significant gains in the treatment group. No participants reached their ideal CPIB target, and few reached their satisfactory target. Static CPIB short form and CAT scores were not significantly different, with an average of five CAT items administered per participant. Overall group similarities between patient and proxy scores may have obscured wide variability across individual patient‐proxy pairs. Associations between CPIB and VHI‐10, health‐related quality of life, self‐reported speech severity, and depression ranged from weak to moderate. Conclusions and Implications: The CPIB appears to be sensitive to capturing change with intervention, and similar results are obtained with the static short form and CAT formats. One clinical caution is that even with gains observed in the treatment group, no participants obtained their ideal communicative participation goals, and few obtained a satisfactory level of communicative participation. Thus, while current interventions are beneficial, they may not meet the full range of clients' communication needs. While responding to the CPIB through a proxy rater may be feasible, caution is warranted due to concerns about maintaining the autonomy of PwPD. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: The communication disorders associated with Parkinson's disease (PD) can have a negative impact on quality of life and life participation as measured by patient (or person)‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) is one PROM available to use with adults with communication disorders. However, little is known about whether the CPIB captures changes in communicative participation as a result of standard care treatment for people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). Use of computerised adaptive testing (CAT), proxy report and comparison to targeted participation outcomes have not been explored. What this study adds to existing knowledge: As a result of this study, we know that the CPIB captured differences between treatment and observation groups after community‐based, standard care speech therapy intervention focusing on motor speech production in PwPD. Static short form and CAT scores did not differ significantly, so the CAT option provides better efficiency requiring, on average, five items to administer compared to the 10‐item short form. Proxy and PwPD scores did not differ as a group, but wide variability was noted. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The CPIB may be a clinically sensitive instrument for capturing changes in communicative participation after treatment. No participants met their ideal CPIB target, and few reached their satisfactory target, suggesting that while current interventions contribute to gains in communicative participation, there are still unmet needs that may call for support and interventions addressing the more complex array of factors affecting communicative participation outcomes for PwPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Improving the quality of life for individuals with severe dysphagia is a priority when considering new areas of dysphagia management, especially if this increases opportunities to participate in social activities associated with eating and drinking. Edible foam is widely researched and available in the food industry; however, the use of edible foam within the field of dysphagia remains unexplored. Despite no research published on effectiveness and safety, a commercial product currently on the market is widely distributed across both Europe and the UK, including 28 NHS Trusts, suggesting that it is increasingly being used in clinical practice. Aims: To explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare professionals on the use of stabilized edible foam (SEF) with adults with severe dysphagia in order to inform areas for future research in this novel dysphagia intervention. Methods & Procedures: Healthcare professionals were recruited using purposeful sampling and snowballing technique. A total of 56 healthcare professionals were initially approached, of which 10 completed the semi‐structured interviews. Interview questions were developed from a topic guide and a pilot questionnaire. Outcomes & Results: Thematic analysis was used to identify three themes: potential impact, consideration of risk and perceived experiences. Overarching each of these themes was the element of the unknown. Conclusions & Implications: Use of SEF with adults with dysphagia is in its infancy. Whilst results indicate that some clinicians are embracing this novel approach, others express concerns. Therefore, further research is needed, particularly in relation of direct experience of individuals and contra‐indications. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: The use of SEF with individuals with swallowing problems is a relatively novel area of dysphagia intervention in the UK. There are currently no published studies on its effectiveness and safety profile. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study provides valuable preliminary work into the area of SEF and adults with severe dysphagia, capturing the experience and perceptions of healthcare professions who have an awareness of SEF. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Increasing clinicians and researcher's awareness of this novel area of dysphagia management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the importance of delivering speech and language therapy services to children who stutter (CWS), there are barriers to accessing speech and language therapy. One way to improve access for those who may otherwise be deprived of speech and language therapy services, including CWS, is through telepractice (TP). However, there is currently no evidence as to the viability of TP stuttering assessments for CWS. Aim: To investigate the validity and reliability, and acceptability of using a TP application to assess overt stuttering behaviour children aged 6–15 years. Methods & Procedure: A total of 30 CWS, aged between 6 and 15 years, were recruited from a speech therapy clinic in King Abdulaziz University Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Children were divided into two testing conditions, either face‐to‐face (f2f)‐led or TP‐led testing, and the Stuttering Severity Instrument (SSI‐IV) was administered, percentage of syllables stuttered (%SS) was calculated, and severity ratings (SR) assigned, either via f2f or via TP using two laptops with webcams, video conference software and a broadband internet connection. Agreement and reliability of scoring in the two testing conditions were reported in addition to findings from questionnaires exploring children's and their caregivers' perceptions both before and immediately after the TP assessment was carried out. Outcome & Results: A total of 30 sessions were successfully carried out, with results revealing unsatisfactory levels of agreement when applying the Bland and Altman method. However, when discrepancies were found, these were comparable with those from traditional f2f studies. Generally, parents and children exhibited high levels of satisfaction and held a positive view regarding TP pre‐ and post‐assessment. Conclusions & Implications: The results of the study suggest that conducting an overt stuttering assessment via TP for 6–15‐year‐olds CWS is reliable and valid. Although the TP model posed some (mainly technical) challenges for executing the assessment, high levels of satisfaction were recorded by parents and children alike. The TP system and equipment chosen in this study has provided a basis for the delivery of TP overt stuttering assessment in a clinical setting, thus addressing the barriers to access that are present for CWS. These results are preliminary, but they can be seen as a building block for future research in TP assessment studies for CWS. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Stuttering treatment via TP has been proven to be feasible and successful across a variety of treatment programs (e.g., Lidcombe, Camperdown). However, the viability of assessing stuttering via videoconferencing has never been explored in children. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: Preliminary support for the assessment of overt stuttering in CWS aged 6–15 years via video conferencing. The results justify larger scale studies of this service delivery method. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The TP system and equipment chosen in this study has provided a basis for the delivery of TP overt stuttering assessment in a clinical setting, thus addressing the barriers to access that are present for CWS aged 6–15 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite emerging evidence of validity and reliability, speech and language therapists' (SLT) uptake of telehealth has been limited and barriers remain to the effective and confident use of this service model. The COVID‐19 pandemic has caused significant disruption to essential health services, including speech and language therapy assessment and intervention, meaning that telehealth must now be considered as part of the suite of service delivery options for all clinicians. Aims: To explore the perceived barriers and facilitators of telehealth among community paediatric SLTs before and after their use of a telehealth platform with an embedded standardised assessment tool. Methods & Procedures: Mixed‐methods questionnaires were developed for this study and completed by SLTs before and after the 3‐month trial of the telehealth platform. A total of 38 SLTs completed the pre‐trial questionnaire and training in the use of telehealth platform (Coviu), including instruction in using a standardised, norm referenced language test as an integrated tool within the Coviu platform. A total of 27 SLTs went on to use the telehealth platform, and 25 of these completed the post‐trial questionnaire on which subsequent qualitative and quantitative analysis was completed. Outcomes & Results: Prior to using the platform, perceived barriers included technology issues, limited clinician experience and concerns around parent acceptance of the service. Potential facilitators included access to appropriate platforms, tools and resources as well as increased clinician confidence with telehealth. Following the trial, barriers to telehealth use continued to include technology barriers, particularly internet stability, and client issues, including suitability for telehealth services. Facilitators for future telehealth use included access to appropriate platforms for telehealth, stable and appropriate internet connectivity, and more extensive telehealth resources for both assessment and intervention for this mode of service delivery. Conclusions & Implications: This study provides insights into the perceptions of the barriers and facilitating factors for telehealth use among community‐based SLTs. This information will be useful in developing strategies to promote uptake and effective and confident use of telehealth as a mode of service delivery beyond the pandemic. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Research about telehealth has shown that it is a reliable and valid way of delivering speech pathology services, yet many clinicians have been wary of its use and uptake of telehealth prior to COVID‐19 had been limited. We wanted to know what SLTs thought about using telehealth before and after participating in a 3‐month trial of a telehealth platform with an embedded formal language assessment. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This study indicates that technology issues including internet stability are a barrier to effective telehealth services, but that appropriate telehealth platforms, resources and experience are facilitators of uptake and successful use of telehealth. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This information will be useful in developing strategies to promote uptake and effective and confident use of telehealth as a mode of service delivery for children during and beyond the pandemic, including those isolated by geographical or transport barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]