Search

Background: : Dysphagia is prevalent in subjects with Parkinson's disease (PD). Swallowing intervention to improve or maintain swallowing function is of major importance as dysphagia may considerably impact physical and psycho‐social health. Aims: : A mixed methods systematic review was conducted to summarize and appraise literature reporting (1) effects of behavioural interventions for swallowing in individuals with PD; and (2) participants' perspectives of swallowing interventions. Methods & Procedures: : Electronic databases were searched systematically in July 2020 for articles published between 2014 and 2020. In addition, studies published between 2000 and 2014 were identified non‐systematically through previous reviews. Peer‐reviewed quantitative and qualitative research in English or German documenting behavioural interventions for swallowing in individuals with a diagnosis of PD was eligible for inclusion. Participants at all disease stages were included. Behavioural interventions included rehabilitative and compensatory strategies. Studies reporting swallowing outcomes with and without a comparative group were included. For each study, the National Health and Medical Research Council level of evidence was defined. Included studies were critically appraised using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. An integrated synthesis was performed after separate analysis of effect data and data reflecting participants' experiences. This review was conducted based on published JBI methodology and the guideline from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis system was followed. Main Contribution: : A total of 33 studies published in English met the inclusion criteria. Thirty‐one studies reported quantitative data, one was qualitative and one was mixed methods. Intervention effects on swallowing function, swallowing safety and swallowing‐related quality of life were reported for various treatment approaches. Three studies explored how participants perceived the intervention. Overriding themes including subjects' views regarding treatment schedules and levels of effort or comfort associated with the intervention were identified across these studies. Combining evidence of intervention effects and subjects' experiences was possible for one rehabilitative and one compensatory intervention. Conclusions & Implications: : Beneficial effects of swallowing interventions have been reported; however, most experiments were case studies of variable methodological quality. Randomized‐controlled trials with robust methodology to explore treatment effects in larger samples is needed to guide clinical practice. Research reporting subjects' views is scarce. More studies exploring how individuals perceive behavioural interventions for swallowing are necessary to inform clinical decision‐making. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Dysphagia is common in individuals with PD. Swallowing intervention is of major importance as dysphagia may negatively affect physical and psycho‐social health of subjects with PD. What this study adds: Beneficial effects of behavioural interventions for swallowing, including rehabilitative and compensatory strategies, have been reported; however, available data are mostly based on case studies of variable quality. Data on how participants perceive specific behavioural interventions are lacking. Based on the available data, integration of efficacy data and individuals' experiences is limited. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Given the current evidence of intervention effects and individuals' views on behavioural treatment strategies, interventions implemented into clinical practice require careful evaluation on a case‐by‐case basis. More high‐quality research is needed to examine interventions' short‐ and long‐term effects in larger samples to guide clinical practice. In addition to studies evaluating intervention effects, research exploring participants' experiences with interventions is required as a foundation for clinical decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence should guide decisions in aphasia practice across the continuum of stroke care; however, evidence–practice gaps persist. This is particularly pertinent in the acute setting where 30% of people with stroke will have aphasia, and speech pathologists experience many challenges implementing evidence‐based practice. This has important consequences for people with aphasia and their close others, as well as speech pathologists working in acute settings. Aims: This study protocol details how we will target practice change using a behavioural approach, with the aim of promoting the uptake of synthesized evidence in aphasia management post‐stroke in the acute hospital setting. Methods & Procedures: We will conduct a mixed‐methods before‐and‐after study following the Knowledge‐to‐Action (KTA) framework. Researchers, speech pathologists and people with lived experience of aphasia will collaborate to identify and prioritize practice gaps, and develop and implement changes to clinical practice based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel. Discussion: This study may provide a template for acute stroke services in how to use an implementation science approach to promote the application of synthesized evidence into routine clinical practice to ensure people with aphasia receive high‐quality services. Collaboration among researchers, healthcare providers, people with aphasia and their close others ensures that the identification and targeting of practice gaps are driven by theory, lived experience and the local context. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Synthesized evidence, such as clinical guidelines and consensus statements, provides the highest level of evidence to inform clinical practice, yet discrepancies between delivered care and evidence remain. This discrepancy is of note in the acute setting where clinicians report many challenges implementing the best available evidence, combined with a high proportion of people with stroke who will have aphasia (30%). There are many reasons why evidence is not put into practice, and efforts to change clinical practice need to consider these barriers when developing interventions. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study protocol details an implementation science approach to affect clinical practice change, informed by a collaboration of key stakeholders (researchers, speech pathologists, and people with aphasia and their close others). Protocol papers that focus on bridging the gap between evidence and practice are uncommon in communication disorders; moreover, explicit prioritization of practice gaps is a critical but often overlooked aspect of promoting evidence‐based practice. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This protocol provides insights into how one study site identified and prioritized evidence–practice gaps using a participatory approach. We provide insights into how clinical practice change may occur by describing how we plan to identify priority evidence–practice gaps and develop an intervention to improve the use of aphasia evidence in routine practice. This protocol aims to share an implementation science approach to service improvement that may be replicated across other services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The communication skills of older adults living in care homes is an underexplored topic. Ageing can lead to reduced communication ability and activity; and in the care home environment there may also be fewer communication opportunities. This situation is likely to negatively impact well‐being. Previous reviews have found evidence of the effectiveness of behavioural interventions in increasing well‐being, but no systematic review to date has focused specifically on the evidence base for group language and communication interventions in this population. Aims: To identify and evaluate the evidence for behavioural interventions with older adults, delivered in groups in care homes, that specifically included a language or communication activity. To explore the impact of such intervention on the specific domains of language, communication and social interaction. To determine whether behavioural mechanisms of action can be identified. Methods & Procedures: Embase, Medline, Ovid Nursing database, Psych info and CINAHL complete were searched and produced 158 records for screening, of which 22 remained for review. In order to identify and evaluate the quality of the evidence base presented the following research questions were posed: What research has been conducted in this area? What is the methodological quality of the studies identified? How complete is the intervention reporting? How was change measured in the domains of language, communication and social interaction? Is there evidence of efficacy, indicated by statistically significant improvement, in these domains? How did the interventions work? Synthesis tools employed included the PEDro‐P Scale, the TIDieR checklist and the ITAX. Main contribution: A total of 22 studies met the criteria for review. One study used solely language or communication interventions, but the remaining 21 studies used behavioural interventions which incorporated language and communication activities to varying degrees. Studies fell into four broad intervention types: reminiscence or life review; cognitive stimulation; narrative or storytelling; and multi‐modality group communication. The majority of studies were of fair methodological quality, with a moderate level of detail provided in treatment reporting. Statistically significant improvement was reported by authors in all four intervention types and across language, communication and social domains. Social interaction, social support and behavioural skills were the most consistent mechanisms of action in the reviewed behavioural interventions. Conclusions & Implications: Despite limitations in the evidence base, there are important positive signs for the beneficial effects of supporting language and communication in care homes. Blinding of assessors, and the accuracy and accessibility of statistical reporting are important areas to address in order to improve the quality of the evidence base. What this paper adds: Ageing can lead to reduced communication ability and activity, and in the care home setting there may also be fewer communication opportunities. This situation is likely to negatively impact well‐being. Previous reviews have found evidence of the effectiveness of behavioural interventions in increasing well‐being. The communication skills of older adults living in care homes is an underexplored topic. No systematic review to date has focused specifically on the evidence base for group language and communication interventions in this population. This review reveals important positive signs for the beneficial effects of supporting language and communication in care homes. Social interaction, social support, and behavioural skills were the most consistent mechanisms of action in the reviewed behavioural interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]