Search

Background: Very young children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds often show poorer language development. Whilst there have been attempts to provide early intervention programmes, these sometimes miss the most disadvantaged groups. Aims: This report presents preliminary feasibility and effectiveness data for a novel language intervention designed for parents of toddlers in the United Kingdom. Methods and Procedures: In total, 43 UK families of 2–4‐year‐olds were recruited to the study, half of whom completed an 8‐week course (Tots Talking) focussed on parent interaction, and half of whom acted as wait‐list controls. Results and Outcomes: Results suggest that such programmes are feasible for families with 86% staying in the intervention. In addition, greater changes in underlying communication skills such as joint attention and gesture were evident compared to wait‐list controls. Conclusions and Implications: We conclude that pre‐verbal skills may be more important to measure as initial outcomes than language or vocabulary change in this population. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are at higher risk of communication difficulties and there is a need for community intervention programmes for very young children. What this study adds: This study suggests that such programmes can be feasible and effective, but that very early/basic communicative skills (such as joint attention) may be boosted first rather than language or vocabulary. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Children's centres and other community services could feasibly run short parent facing courses emphasising contingent communication in low SES families and other diverse groups. These may be more successful run with younger preschoolers. Joint attention may be a better focus of intervention before expecting vocabulary or language change. Community health professionals may find this information useful in referring and supporting families in need. [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]

The aim of this study was to compare the cardiometabolic and physical effects of 2 timematched high-intensity programs in a real-world environment. Forty-three active and healthy adults (sex =31 men and 12 women; age = 27 + 5 years; peak heart rate [HRpeak] = 190.7 + 10.6 beat·min-1) were randomized to 2 very low-volume protocols (;8 minutes): sprint interval training (SIT) (n=15), burpee interval training (BIT) (n=15), and control (CON) (n=13). Subjects in SIT and BIT performed 5 days of 10 3 4 second "all-out" efforts with 30 seconds of recovery. Body composition, blood pressure, countermovement jump (CMJ), 10-m sprint, shuttle run test (SRT), autonomic modulation, self-efficacy, and intention were evaluated before and after training. Sprint interval training elicited a higher %HRpeak, energy expenditure, rating of perceived exertion category ratio 10 scale, and feeling scale than BIT (p, 0.05). SRTdistance was significantly improved in SIT (p = 0.03, d = 0.62), whereas CMJ height was significantly enhanced in BIT (p=0.0014, d=0.72). Self-efficacy progressively worsened for SIT than for BIT as sessions increased, and significant differences were found in 5X week frequency between protocols (p=0.040, d50.79). No differences in intention to engage were detected between the regimens (p. 0.05). No changes were observed in body composition, blood pressure, 10-m sprint, SRTV-O2max, or autonomic variables with training (p. 0.05). Results exhibit that extremely low-volume SIT improved running performance, whereas BIT increased the vertical jump. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]