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: At the beginning of the 21st century, international adoptions of children with cleft lip and/or palate increased dramatically in Sweden. Many children arrived partially or totally unoperated, despite being at an age when palatoplasty has usually been performed. To date, the speech development of internationally adopted (IA) children has been described up to age 7–8 years, but later development remains unstudied. Aims: To investigate speech development between ages 5 and 10 years in children born with cleft lip and palate (CLP) adopted from China and to compare them with non‐adopted (NA) children with CLP. A secondary aim was to compare the frequencies of secondary palatal surgery and number of visits to a speech and language pathologist (SLP) between the groups. Methods & Procedures: In a longitudinal study, 23 IA children from China were included and matched with 23 NA children born in Sweden. Experienced SLPs blindly reassessed audio recordings from routine follow‐ups at ages 5 and 10 years. Velopharyngeal function (VPF) was assessed with the composite score for velopharyngeal competence (VPC‐Sum) for single words and rated on a three‐point scale (VPC‐Rate) in sentence repetition. Target sounds in words and sentences were phonetically transcribed. Per cent correct consonants (PCC) were calculated at word and sentence levels. For in‐depth analyses, articulation errors were divided into cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), developmental speech characteristics (DSCs) and s‐errors. Information on secondary palatal surgery and number of visits to an SLP was collected. Outcomes & Results: VPF differed significantly between the groups at both ages when assessed with VPC‐Sum, but not with VPC‐Rate. Regardless of the method for assessing VPF, a similar proportion in both groups had incompetent VPF but fewer IA than NA children had competent VPF at both ages. IA children had lower PCC at both ages at both word and sentence levels. More IA children had CSCs, DSCs and s‐errors at age 5 years, and CSCs and s‐errors at age 10. The development of PCC was significant in both groups between ages 5 and 10 years. The proportion of children receiving secondary palatal surgery did not differ significantly between the groups, nor did number of SLP visits. Conclusions & Implications: CSCs were more persistent in IA children than in NA children at age 10 years. Interventions should target both cleft and DSCs, be comprehensive and continue past the pre‐school years. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: At the beginning of the 21st century, IA children with cleft lip and/or palate arrived in Sweden partially or totally unoperated, despite being at an age when palatoplasty has usually been performed. Studies up to age 7–8 years show that adopted children, compared with NA peers, have poorer articulation skills, demonstrate both cleft‐related and developmental articulation errors, and are more likely to have velopharyngeal incompetence. Several studies also report that adopted children more often require secondary palatal surgery due to fistulas, dehiscence or velopharyngeal incompetence compared with NA peers. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This longitudinal study provides additional knowledge based on longer follow‐ups than previous studies. It shows that the proportion of children assessed to have incompetent VPF was similar among IA and NA children. It was no significant difference between the groups regarding the proportion that received secondary palatal surgery. However, fewer IA children were assessed to have a competent VPF. Developmental articulation errors have ceased in most IA and all NA children at age 10 years, but significantly more adopted children than NA children still have cleft‐related articulation errors. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Speech and language therapy should target both cleft‐related and developmental articulation errors. When needed, treatment must be initiated early, comprehensive, and continued past the pre‐school years, not least for adopted children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research in word‐finding difficulties is sparse, especially in languages other than English. As a result, the factors associated with the frequency of word‐finding behaviours are poorly understood, particularly in discourse. Aims: This exploratory study is the first to collect data relative to the expected frequency of word‐finding behaviours in narration for French speakers aged 7–12 years old with typical development; and (2) to identify the factors associated with the frequency of word‐finding behaviours in narration. We hypothesized that sociodemographic characteristics, language abilities and characteristics of the spoken productions could be linked to word‐finding behaviours. Methods & Procedures: The participants consisted of 61 French‐speaking children aged 7–12 years old (M = 9;09 years, SD = 1;06 years) with typical development. Children were asked to complete a receptive vocabulary task, a non‐word‐repetition task and two narrative tasks. The children's narrative samples were coded using a discourse analysis of word‐finding behaviours, as described by Diane J. German. Outcomes & Results: Participants produced 39% of T‐units with least one word‐finding behaviour, which included relatively frequent use of repetitions and word reformulations. Regression analyses revealed that the participants' gender was the only significant variable associated with the frequency of word‐finding behaviours in narration. Boys produced a higher percentage of T‐units with at least one word‐finding behaviour. Post‐hoc analyses suggested that gender differences reflected differences in repetitions and word reformulations. Boys and girls did not differ on any other language measures collected. Conclusions & Implications: Speech–language pathologists may want to take into account a child's gender when assessing word‐finding difficulties in narration. Additional studies are needed to understand whether this finding extends to other word‐finding tasks and to children with word‐finding difficulties. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Studies in English have identified that analyses of word‐finding behaviours in discourse can be used to correctly identify children with word‐finding difficulties. Studies are needed in other languages to determine if this observation holds true across languages. Moreover, the factors associated with the frequency of word‐finding behaviours in discourse are poorly understood. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The frequency of word‐finding difficulties in narration was higher in our study of French‐speaking children than in previous studies of English. Gender was the only factor associated with the frequency of word‐finding difficulties. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The language and task used to assess word‐finding skills as well as the child's gender may be important to take into account when assessing word‐finding difficulties based on word‐finding behaviours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The majority of children with cerebral palsy (CP) experience challenges in functional communication from a young age. A pivotal aspect of functional communication is language comprehension. A variety of classification systems and questionnaires are available to classify and describe functional communication skills in children with CP. A better understanding of the convergent validity of (subsections of) these tools, as well as their relationship with spoken language comprehension, will be valuable in both clinical practice and research. Aims: To investigate the convergent validity of (subsections of) functional communication tools and the relationship with spoken language comprehension in children with CP. Methods & Procedures: Cross‐sectional data on 138 children were subdivided into three developmental stages based on (Dutch) educational phases: ages 18 months–3;11y (n = 59), 4;0–5;11 years (n = 37) and 6;0–8;11 years (n = 42). The following functional communication tools were used to classify and describe functional communication: Communication Function Classification System (CFCS), subscales of the Caregivers Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities—Dutch Version (CPCHILD‐DV) and the Focus on Communication Under Six‐34 (FOCUS‐34) questionnaire. Spoken language comprehension was assessed with the Computer‐Based instrument for Low motor Language Testing (C‐BiLLT). Correlations between the functional communication tools, and with the C‐BiLLT, were calculated using Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients. It was hypothesized a priori that correlations of at least 0.60 suggest good convergent validity. Outcomes & Results: At all developmental stages, a significant ordered decreasing tendency of communication outcomes was found across CFCS levels; lower CFCS levels were associated with lower scores on the CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34, and with a lower level of spoken language comprehension (C‐BiLLT). Correlation coefficients of the functional communication tools exceeded 0.60 at all developmental stages. Correlations between C‐BiLLT raw scores and the functional communication tools varied between 0.351 and 0.591 at developmental stage 18 months–3;11 years, between 0.781 and 0.897 at developmental stage 4;0–5;11 years, and between 0.635 and 0.659 at developmental stage 6;0–8;11 years. Conclusions & Implications: The functional communication tools assessed in this study showed convergent validity at all developmental stages. The CFCS, currently most widely used in paediatric rehabilitation, is adequate in the classification of functional communication. However, for more detailed clinical goal setting and evaluation of change in functional communication, the additional use of FOCUS‐34 or CPCHILD‐DV is recommended. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: A range of functional communication tools are available that help describe and classify functional communication in children with CP. These include the CFCS, subsections of CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34. The CFCS classifies functional communication in daily life with familiar and unfamiliar partners. Specific subsections of the CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34 include items that pertain to communicative participation. The innovative C‐BiLLT provides a standardized method to assess spoken language comprehension in children with CP and significant motor impairments. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: In the present study, convergent validity was confirmed between CFCS and specific subsections of the CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34. Correlations between these functional communication tools and the C‐BiLLT were moderate to strong. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: For clinical and research purposes (for instance, accurate prescription of augmentative and alternative communication—AAC), healthcare and educational professionals together with parents need to know how functional communication tools converge and how functional communication levels relate to the comprehension of spoken language. The CFCS provides a valid classification of functional communication abilities in children with CP. However, to measure change in functional communication and to evaluate treatment outcomes, use of additional functional communication tools such as the CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34 is recommended. When discrepancies are found between communicative abilities and spoken language comprehension, it is strongly recommended that valid tools are used in a more detailed examination of the child's spoken language comprehension skills and functional communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aim: To assess consonant proficiency and velopharyngeal function in 10‐year‐old children born with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) within the Scandcleft project. Methods & Procedures: Three parallel group, randomized, clinical trials were undertaken as an international multicentre study by nine cleft teams in five countries. Three different surgical protocols for primary palate repair (Arm B–Lip and soft palate closure at 3–4 months, hard palate closure at 36 months, Arm C–Lip closure at 3–4 months, hard and soft palate closure at 12 months, and Arm D–Lip closure at 3–4 months combined with a single‐layer closure of the hard palate using a vomer flap, soft palate closure at 12 months) were tested against a common procedure (Arm A–Lip and soft palate closure at 3–4 months followed by hard palate closure at 12 months) in the total cohort of 431 children born with a non‐syndromic UCLP. Speech audio and video recordings of 399 children were available and perceptually analysed. Percentage of consonants correct (PCC) from a naming test, an overall rating of velopharyngeal competence (VPC) (VPC‐Rate), and a composite measure (VPC‐Sum) were reported. Outcomes & Results: The mean levels of consonant proficiency (PCC score) in the trial arms were 86–92% and between 58% and 83% of the children had VPC (VPC‐Sum). Only 50–73% of the participants had a consonant proficiency level with their peers. Girls performed better throughout. Long delay of the hard palate repair (Arm B) indicated lower PCC and simultaneous hard and soft palate closure higher (Arm C). However, the proportion of participants with primary VPC (not including velopharyngeal surgeries) was highest in Arm B (68%) and lowest in Arm C (47%). Conclusions & Implications: The speech outcome in terms of PCC and VPC was low across the trials. The different protocols had their pros and cons and there is no obvious evidence to recommend any of the protocols as superior. Aspects other than primary surgical method, such as time after velopharyngeal surgery, surgical experience, hearing level, language difficulties and speech therapy, need to be thoroughly reviewed for a better understanding of what has affected speech outcome at 10 years. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Speech outcomes at 10 years of age in children treated for UCLP are sparse and contradictory. Previous studies have examined speech outcomes and the relationship with surgical intervention in 5‐year‐olds. What this study adds to the existing knowledge: Speech outcomes based on standardized assessment in a large group of 10‐year‐old children born with UCLP and surgically treated according to different protocols are presented. While speech therapy had been provided, a large proportion of the children across treatment protocols still needed further speech therapy. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Aspects other than surgery and speech function might add to the understanding of what affects speech outcome. Effective speech therapy should be available for children in addition to primary surgical repair of the cleft and secondary surgeries if needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]