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: Many amateur singers enjoy singing in choirs. They are likely to lack the training and expertise of professional singers and this may have an impact on their vocal health. Aims: To assess the experiences of amateur singers, their use of warm‐up and cool‐down sessions, their vocal health, their sources of help and advice and their reactions to receiving a diagnosis and treatment. Methods and Procedures: A questionnaire was sent to amateur choir singers. Quantitative data on their use of warm‐up and cool‐down activities were collected and the singers rated how frequently they experienced adverse voice symptoms after singing. Qualitative data were collected from singers who had sought advice about their voice and from those who had received a diagnosis and treatment. Outcome and Results: Most choirs used warm‐up sessions but few used cool‐down. Singers who participated in choir warm‐ups experienced significantly less vocal symptoms. Individual warm‐ups were ineffective. Singers who had previously had a diagnosis continued to have significantly higher symptom scores. A quarter of the singers who had neither sought help nor had a diagnosis had high scores. Singers appeared uncertain about who to consult for help. Those who saw a speech and language therapist were much more likely to receive a diagnosis and treatment either by the therapist or by referral to an ear, nose and throat specialist. Those receiving treatment were mainly positive about it and likely to complete a course of therapy. Conclusions and Implications: Warm‐up sessions performed by choirs are helpful in avoiding voice symptoms and are recommended. The presence of singers who are unaware of potential damage to their voices is a concern. A simple rating system, as used in this research, may act to alert them to the dangers. Choir leaders could be more active in advising singers and refer them to professionals where necessary. Speech and language therapists appear more sensitive to their problems and could be a first point of contact. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Poor vocal health may occur in amateur singers and lead to voice disorders which will reduce the demonstrated benefits of regular singing. They may be less aware than professional singers of potential hazards and may not know how to sing in a way that ensures good vocal health. There has been less research on the extent of voice problems in amateurs or of the actions they may take to resolve the vocal difficulties they encounter. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This survey demonstrates that choir warm‐ups were effective in helping to avoid common symptoms associated with voice problems. A large minority of singers who had not sought help for voice problems had high symptom scores on our assessment. Singers frequently turned to a singing teacher for help. Those who consulted a speech and language therapist were much more likely to be referred for further investigation and treatment. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: We present a simple subjective measure of symptom severity which succeeds in distinguishing between singers who warm up their voices and those who do not and between singers who have received a past diagnosis and those who have not. There are a number of indications in this research that amateur singers are unsure if they need help and are uncertain who can offer it. In these circumstances the use of a simple measure of the severity of vocal abuse may be useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dysphagia impacts negatively on quality of life, however there is little in‐depth qualitative research on these impacts from the perspective of people with dysphagia. Aims: To examine the lived experiences and views of people with lifelong or ongoing dysphagia on the impacts of dysphagia and its interventions on quality of life, and barriers and facilitators to improved quality of life related to mealtimes. Methods & Procedures: Nine adults with lifelong or acquired chronic dysphagia engaged in in‐depth interviews and a mealtime observation. The observations were recorded and scored using the Dysphagia Disorders Survey (DDS). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and de‐identified before content thematic and narrative analysis, and verification of researcher interpretations. Outcomes & Results: Participants presented with mild to severe dysphagia as assessed by the DDS. They viewed that dysphagia and its interventions reduced their quality of life and that they had 'paid a high price' in terms of having reduced physical safety, reduced choice and control, poor mealtime experiences, and poor social engagement. As part of their management of dysphagia, participants identified several barriers to and facilitators for improved quality of life including: being involved in the design of their meals, being adaptable, having ownership of swallowing difficulties, managing the perceptions of others and resisting changes to oral intake. Conclusions & Implications: This research improves understanding of the primary concerns of people with dysphagia about their mealtime experiences and factors impacting on their quality of life. Clinicians working with people with dysphagia need to consider how self‐determination, autonomy and freedom of choice could be improved through involvement in food design of texture‐modified foods. It is important that future research considers the views of health professionals on how these findings could impact on policy and practice particularly in ways to address the barriers and enhance facilitators to improved quality of life for people with dysphagia. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Dysphagia impacts on quality of life, particularly as the severity of the dysphagia increases. Research to date has focused on people with dysphagia associated with an acquired health condition and has used quantitative assessment methods to measure quality of life. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study provides a qualitative examination of the impacts of dysphagia on quality of life from the perspective of people with lifelong or ongoing acquired dysphagia and their supporters. This study also provides qualitative insights into the barriers and facilitators of mealtime‐related quality of life. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Health professionals should engage in open communication with their clients with dysphagia regarding the impacts of dysphagia on their lifestyle and quality of life. By considering these impacts, health professionals may be able to recommend interventions that are more acceptable to the person with the dysphagia which may have a positive impact on their mealtime experience. [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: Evidence‐based practice involves the synthesis of multiple forms of evidence to inform clinical decision‐making and treatment evaluation. Practice‐ and patient‐based evidence are two forms of evidence that are under‐represented in the stuttering literature. The collection of such knowledge is essential to support the design and delivery of effective stuttering interventions for adults. Aims: To build stakeholder consensus on the core components of intervention for adults who stutter, and to establish a guiding framework for the design and development of evidence‐based interventions for adults who stutter. Methods & Procedures: Adults who stutter and speech and language therapists (SLTs) with experience in providing stuttering intervention participated in the three‐round e‐Delphi Survey focused on: (1) identifying key stuttering intervention components, including principles, practices, and structural and contextual elements; and (2) obtaining group consensus on stuttering intervention components. Statements were categorized using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model adapted to the study of stuttering. Outcomes & Results: A total of 48 individuals agreed to participate: 48/48 (100%) completed the Round 1 questionnaire, 40/48 (83%) responded to Round 2 and 36/40 (90%) participated in Round 3. Following content analysis of Round 1, 101 statements were developed, and consensus was achieved on 89 statements perceived as representing the core components of stuttering intervention for adults. Categorization of these statements reflected the key stuttering intervention components relating to personal reactions to stuttering, limitations in life participation and environmental factors. Conclusions & Implications: Consensus on the core components of stuttering intervention was reached through engagement with key stakeholders. The evidence‐based framework presented highlights the range of key intervention components a clinician should consider when designing interventions for adults who stutter. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Evidence‐based practice endorses the synthesis of multiple knowledge forms including research, practice and patient evidence to support clinical decision‐making and treatment evaluation. The stuttering literature is characterized by an over‐representation of efficacy evidence, with significantly less practice and patient evidence to guide clinical practice. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study adds valuable practice‐ and patient‐based evidence for effective stuttering intervention components for adults who stutter. These relate to personal reactions to stuttering, limitations in life participation and environmental factors. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This research presents a stakeholder‐informed framework for stuttering intervention to guide SLTs working with adults who stutter in designing evidence‐based interventions. The framework supports the adoption of a person‐centred approach to intervention to ensure each client's unique needs, preferences, values and desired outcomes are explored and integrated into therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with aphasia rely on gesture more than healthy controls to get their message across, but use a limited range of gesture types. Gesture therapy is thus a potential avenue of intervention for people with aphasia. However, currently no gesture assessment evaluates how they use gesture. Such a tool could inform therapy targets and measure outcomes. In gesture research, many different coding categories are used to describe gesture forms and functions. These coding methods are prohibitively time‐consuming to use in clinical practice. There is therefore a need for a 'quick and dirty' method of assessing gesture use. Aims: To investigate current practice among UK‐based clinicians (speech and language therapists) in relation to gesture assessment and therapy, to synthesize gesture‐coding frameworks used in aphasia research, to develop a gesture checklist based on the synthesized coding frameworks suitable for use in clinical practice, and to investigate the interrater reliability (IRR) of the checklist among experienced and unfamiliar users. Methods & Procedures: The research team synthesized seven gesture‐coding frameworks and trialled three resulting prototype checklists at a co‐design workshop with 20 clinicians. Attending clinicians were also consulted about their current clinical gesture practice using a questionnaire. A final City Gesture Checklist (CGC) was developed based upon outcomes and feedback from the workshop. The IRR of the CGC was evaluated between the research team and 11 further clinicians within a second workshop. Both groups used the CGC to count gestures in video clips of people with aphasia talking to a conversation partner. Main Contribution: A total of 18 workshop attendees completed the current practice questionnaire. Of these, 10 reported assessing gesture informally and five also used formal assessment. Gesture‐coding synthesis highlighted six main categories of gesture form. Clinicians at the co‐design workshop provided feedback on prototype checklists regarding the relevance and usability of the gesture categories, layout, use of images and instructions. A final version of the CGC was created incorporating their recommendations. The IRR for the CGC was moderate between both the researchers and clinicians. Conclusions & Implications: The CGC can be used to assess the types of gesture that people with aphasia produce. The IRR was moderate amongst both experienced users and new users who had received no training. Future research directions include investigating how to improve IRR, evaluating intra‐rater reliability and sensitivity to change, and exploring use of the CGC in clinical practice. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectPeople with aphasia rely on gesture more than healthy speakers, yet use a more limited range of gesture types. Gesture therapy is used by clinicians with the aim of helping people with aphasia to compensate for their language impairment and/or to facilitate speech.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study explores current gesture assessment practice among UK‐based clinicians and synthesizes the coding categories used in the literature about gesture research in aphasia. It describes the development of a novel outcome measure, the CGC, and preliminary testing of its IRR.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?This 'quick and dirty' tool enables clinicians to analyse and record the types of gesture produced by people with aphasia without the need for gesture coding. Preliminary findings suggest that clinicians can use it with a fair degree of reliability by following the checklist's written instructions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Autistic people require varying levels of support at different stages of their lives. Yet, the healthcare needs of autistic adults are largely unmet. Speech and language therapy (SLT) is one healthcare service that has an important role in supporting autistic people: both with initial diagnosis, and with the ongoing support needed to navigate different communicative challenges across the lifespan. Despite recommendations for such support, currently there is no clear SLT pathway for autistic adults, and a lack of established approaches to support autistic adults' speech, language and communication needs. Aims: To seek autistic adults' views on (1) their communication skills and support needs; (2) the type of support SLT could offer; and (3) how such support could be provided. Methods & Procedures: A total of 18 autistic adults were interviewed in their preferred mode of communication (e.g., face to face, phone call, text messaging, e‐mail), expressing their views on their communication skills and needs. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. Outcomes & Results: Autistic adults presented complex views on communication, identifying the benefits of communication, while also emphasizing the significant negative impact that communication difficulties can have on their everyday lives. Identifying a range of internal (e.g., personal feelings) and external (e.g., the communication partner) factors, they highlighted the need for support at both individual levels (for specific life situations) and broader societal levels (to increase awareness and acceptance of communication difficulties). Conclusions & Implications: Considering the negative impact that communication difficulties can have for autistic adults, a need for support was emphasized. Despite recognition of this need within current legislation (in the UK) and positive steps toward providing support, more needs to be done. As experts in supporting individuals with communication difficulties, speech and language therapists could play a pivotal role in providing support at an individual level, as well as increasing awareness of communication differences more widely. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectThere is a growing population of autistic adults with unmet support needs. A core characteristic of autism is difficulty with neurotypical social communication and interaction, which persists into adulthood and impacts across various life domains.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeAutistic adults outlined the types of communication difficulties they experience, and how these can negatively impact on physical and mental health. Results highlight how these difficulties are not just rooted within the person themselves but can be influenced by external factors (e.g., the environment and the communication partner).What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Some autistic adults may benefit from direct support from SLT services. However, increased awareness and respect for communication differences at a broader societal level is also needed. Speech and language therapists can play an important role in increasing this level of awareness, positively highlighting differences in communication and ways to support people with communication difficulties/differences. [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]