Search

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 The effectiveness of two treatment approaches (phonological therapy and articulation therapy) for treatment of 14 children, aged 4;0-6;7 years, with phonologically based speech-sound disorder (SSD) has been previously analysed with severity outcome measures (percentage of consonants correct score, percentage occurrence of phonological processes and phonetic inventory). Considering that the ultimate goal of intervention for children with phonologically based SSD is to improve intelligibility, it is curious that intervention studies focusing on children's phonology do not routinely use intelligibility as an outcome measure. It is therefore important that the impact of interventions on speech intelligibility is explored. Aims This paper investigates the effectiveness of the two treatment approaches (phonological therapy and articulation therapy) using intelligibility measures, both in single words and in continuous speech, as the primary outcome. Methods & Procedures Fourteen children with phonologically based SSD participated in the intervention. The children were randomly assigned to phonological therapy or articulation therapy (seven children in each group). Two assessment methods were used for measuring intelligibility: a word identification task (for single words) and a rating scale (for continuous speech). Twenty-one unfamiliar adults listened and judged the children's intelligibility. Reliability analyses showed overall high agreement between listeners across both methods. Outcomes & Results Significant improvements were noted in intelligibility in both single words (paired t(6) = 4.409, p = 0.005) and continuous speech (asymptotic Z = 2.371, p = 0.018) for the group receiving phonology therapy pre- to post-treatment, but no differences in intelligibility were found for those receiving the articulation therapy pre- to post-treatment, either for single words (paired t(6) = 1.763, p = 0.128) or continuous speech (asymptotic Z = 1.442, p = 0.149). Conclusions & Implications Intelligibility measures were sensitive enough to show changes in the phonological therapy group but not in the articulation therapy group. These findings emphasize the importance of using intelligibility as an outcome measure to complement the results obtained with other severity measures when exploring the effectiveness of speech interventions. This study presents new evidence for the effectiveness of phonological therapy in improving intelligibility with children with SSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]