Search

Background: Stroke profoundly affects quality of life (QOL), including loss of employment, reduced social activity, shrinking social networks and low mood. Dysgraphia (impaired writing) is a common symptom of aphasia yet is rarely targeted in rehabilitation. Recent technological advances might challenge this, since much communication is now conducted digitally through writing. The rehabilitation of writing may therefore help to address the wider consequences of stroke and aphasia. Aims: Can assistive technology (AT) training for people with dysgraphia: (1) improve written output, and are gains achieved only with AT? (2) improve reading comprehension scores, and are gains achieved only with AT? and (3) affect social participation, mood or QOL Methods and Procedures: Design A mixed‐methods, repeated measures, small group study design was adopted (qualitative outcomes will be reported elsewhere). Participants: Recruited from community settings, for example, Stroke Association communication support groups. Inclusion criteria: over 18 years old, aphasia due to stroke, acquired dysgraphia, writing more impaired than speech, fluent English prior to stroke, access to computer and Internet. Exclusion criteria: currently receiving speech and language therapy, significant cognitive impairment, neuromuscular/motor‐speech impairments/structural abnormalities, developmental dyslexia, uncorrected visual/auditory impairments. Procedures: Screening and diagnostic assessments at time T1 (first baseline). Outcome measures at T1; repeated at T2 (second baseline), T3 (end of intervention), T4 (3‐month follow up). Social participation assessment and cognitive monitoring at T2, T3, T4. Intervention: Seven–ten hours individual therapy weekly and additional email support. Participants were trained to operate Dragon NaturallySpeaking (speech to text package) and ClaroRead (read writing aloud). Outcome measures were administered on pen and paper (control) and on computer, with AT enabled only at T3, T4. Outcomes and Results: Computer narrative writing was significantly improved by AT training (Friedman's χ2 (3) = 8.27, p = 0.041), indicating a compensatory effect of AT. Though reading comprehension significantly improved in the computer condition (Friedman's χ2 (3) = 21.07, p = 0.001), gains could not be attributed to the AT. Gains were achieved only when measures were administered on the keyboard, with AT enabled. Thus, a compensatory rather than remediatory effect was suggested. Social network size significantly increased; there were no significant changes in mood/QOL. Individual success rates varied. Conclusion and Implications: The customisable AT training was acceptable to participants and resulted in significantly improved narrative writing. Compensatory AT interventions are a useful adjunct to remediatory writing interventions and may particularly support functional writing. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Writing is rarely spared in aphasia and may present as the most impaired communication modality. Yet, people with aphasia report that writing is seldom included in their rehabilitation. Many communication activities are now conducted digitally through writing, therefore rehabilitation of this is more important than ever before. This study sought to address whether an assistive technology (AT) software package can improve writing and whether any changes were compensatory or remediatory. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This group study found that AT training led to gains in written discourse and social network in people with aphasia and dysgraphia. Gains were not replicated in handwritten tasks, suggesting this was a compensatory therapeutic approach. What are the clinical implications of this work?: AT programs such as this may present speech and language therapists with a practical, pragmatic adjunct to writing or typing therapy, particularly for clients with chronic, intractable impairments for whom remediatory therapy may have a low chance of success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research is beginning to shed light on the practices employed by speech‐language therapists (SLTs) for the management of acquired dysarthria. However, studies that explore SLTs' satisfaction with the effectiveness of current therapies and their interest in new treatment methods for this population have not been carried out. One potential new method is neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES): the pool of evidence for its use in rehabilitation is increasing, yet it has not been widely explored for use with dysarthria. Aim: To extend the understanding of acquired dysarthria management practices employed by SLTs across the globe and determine their satisfaction with current therapy options. To explore their interest in using NMES with this population. Methods and Procedures: A cross‐sectional international online survey was developed and disseminated to SLTs working with adults with acquired dysarthria through international professional associations. The survey collected information on demographic characteristics, dysarthria management practices, satisfaction with treatment effectiveness and interest in and knowledge of NMES. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and quantitative content analysis. Outcomes and Results: A total of 211 SLTs (North America, 48.8%; Europe, 36%; Asia, 8.1%; Oceania, 5.7%; Africa, 0.9%; South America, 0.5%) completed the survey in full. Management practices varied considerably. There was a clear preference for informal assessments, mainly oral‐motor examinations, focusing on body functions and structures. The majority of respondents rejected the use of non‐speech oral motor exercises as a clinical or carryover exercise. Variable satisfaction with current speech subsystem treatments was noted; however, overall, there was a general dissatisfaction. Whilst a strong interest in the use of NMES for dysarthria was evidenced, it was noted that most SLTs lacked fundamental knowledge of NMES principles and application. Conclusion: SLTs' management practices and satisfaction with acquired dysarthria treatments differed substantially. Investigations of the potential use of NMES for dysarthria treatment are of interest. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Recent country‐specific surveys have explored speech‐language therapists' (SLTs') assessment and intervention practices for acquired dysarthria. These studies indicate that although clinical management for this speech disorder mainly involves informal assessment tools and impairment‐focused treatment, communication beyond the impairment, such as the activity and participation domains, is also frequently assessed and treated. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The majority of SLTs are dissatisfied with the overall benefits of current acquired dysarthria treatment. Phonatory, respiration and speech rate therapies are perceived to be more effective than prosody, articulation and resonance treatments. Despite a general lack of theoretical knowledge, most SLTs are interested in neuromuscular electrical stimulation treatment for acquired dysarthria. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: New, evidence‐based treatments are needed for SLTs to be confident in the effectiveness of their acquired dysarthria treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Person‐centred services are inherently related to patients/caregivers' needs. However, the extent to which dysphagia services within Singapore meet consumer needs is largely unknown. Involving patients/caregivers in service evaluation/redesign deepens the understanding of consumer needs. This process also increases the success of implementing service enhancements through relevant and meaningful change. Aim: This study aimed to identify aspects of dysphagia services, within acute and subacute settings in Singapore, perceived as highly important and easy to change by patients/caregivers. Methods & Procedures: Using concept mapping methodology, 5 patients and 11 caregivers reflected on their experiences of receiving dysphagia care and proposed 59 unique suggestions to improve dysphagia services within Singapore. Then, each individual sorted the suggestions into groups based on similarity and rated each statement for its perceived importance and changeability for service enhancement. Data were analysed using multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and bivariate analysis to generate clusters of conceptually similar suggestions and a prioritised list of suggestions for service enhancement. Results: Twelve clusters were identified, with most rated as more important than changeable for service improvement. Participants prioritised 23 (39%) of the suggestions as highly important and easy to change, and these focused on ensuring effective communication among consumers and healthcare team, enhancing patients and carers' access to support at home, increasing patients and carers' access to educational resources, and improving service quality and access through technology. Conclusion: These findings provide future directions on how to develop and implement dysphagia services in Singapore to better meet the needs of patients/caregivers. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Little is known about patients and caregivers' experiences and expectations of receiving dysphagia services in Singapore. Consulting them in service review and improvement deepens understanding of their needs and increases the success of implementing meaningful service enhancements. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This study shows that patients and caregivers in Singapore identified a wide range of dysphagia service issues and prioritised a list of suggestions for service improvement. They prioritised four key areas for service optimisation: ensuring effective communication among consumers and healthcare team, enhancing patients and carers' access to support at home, increasing patients and carers' access to educational resources, and improving service quality and access through technology. What are the clinical implications of this work?: This research highlights the importance of considering the consumers' perspectives in service review and redesign. Patients and caregivers in Singapore identified four prioritised areas for service enhancements. These findings provide future directions on how to develop and implement dysphagia services in Singapore to better meet the needs of patients and caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In order to conduct research that is meaningful to speech and language therapy services and their patients, it is often desirable to conduct the research within routine clinical services. This can require considerable time and commitment from speech and language therapists (SLTs). It is therefore important to understand the impact that such participation in research can have. Aims: To explore the impact of research participation in the Big CACTUS study of self‐managed computerized aphasia therapy conducted in 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. Methods & Procedures: An online survey was sent to SLTs who took the lead role for the study at their NHS Trust to evaluate the impact of study participation in three domains: capacity‐building, research development and health services. The questionnaire, based on the VICTOR framework for evaluating research impact, included Likert scale statements and closed and open‐ended questions. The results from open‐ended questions were coded and analysed using framework analysis in NVivo 12 and the data from closed questions were analysed descriptively. Outcomes & Results: A total of 12 SLTs returned the survey. Nine codes were identified from open‐ended questions and 20 predefined from the literature. Analysis of the responses demonstrated the perceived impact including improvements in practices and access to therapy, investments in infrastructure, increased SLT profile, and impact on research culture among SLTs. The usefulness of the intervention during the COVID‐19 pandemic was also highlighted. Conclusions & Implications: The results suggest participation in Big CACTUS has resulted in improvements in patient care and SLT research capacity and culture in speech and language therapy departments. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Practice‐based research is encouraged to assist with the clinical relevance of the research findings. Participation in research can be seen as an activity that is additional to the core business of patient care and it can be difficult to secure time to participate or conduct research in clinical settings. Impact evaluation initiatives of individual trials facilitate early identification of benefits beyond the trial. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study describes specific examples of the impact on services, staff and patients from SLT participation and leadership in the Big CACTUS speech and language therapy trial in clinical settings. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this study?: Clinical services participating in research may benefit from improved clinical care for patients both during and after the study, an improved professional reputation, and increased research capacity and culture within the clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies suggest swallow intervention programmes that incorporate visual biofeedback and motor programming principles can improve swallowing and quality of life for people with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) and dysphagia. Few studies have examined outcomes using instrumentation. Aims: Using fibreoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing (FEES), this study examines the effectiveness of a neurorehabilitation intervention involving biofeedback via surface electromyography (sEMG) to improve swallowing in people with IPD, and to explore the feasibility of the intervention approach. Methods & Procedures: We recruited 12 participants with IPD and dysphagia. A total of 10 completed the study. Intervention was delivered for 1 h per day, 5 days per week, for 4 weeks (20 h). Swallowing tasks using sEMG biofeedback incorporated principles of motor learning and neuroplasticity. Instrumental and non‐instrumental assessment, including quality‐of‐life measures carried out at four different time points (two pre‐treatment and two post‐treatment). The final assessment was at 3 months post‐intervention. Outcome & Results: Statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in oral intake methods (95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.70–5.50) and in pharyngeal residue from saliva (95% CI = 2.14–3.15) and solids (95% CI = 2.4–3.5) post‐intervention were confirmed using FEES with improvements at 3 months. The intervention protocol was well tolerated. Participants reported positive change in saliva control and duration of mealtimes as well as unanticipated improvements in voice and cognitive attention. Conclusions & Implications: An intensive neurorehabilitation with biofeedback shows positive effects in improving swallow function in IPD. This protocol is feasible with amendments to inform a larger clinical trial. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Biofeedback has positive effects on increasing swallowing function and quality of life in people with IPD and dysphagia. sEMG is the most common method used to deliver swallowing biofeedback in this population. The quality of the evidence on the intervention, based on findings from a recent systematic review, is low. Included studies in this review were heterogeneous in terms of type and frequency of biofeedback, study design and outcome measures. The majority of outcome measures were subjective and higher quality studies to examine the efficacy of biofeedback using sEMG are needed. What this study adds: Recognizing the limitations of earlier studies, this within‐subject feasibility study examined the efficacy and effectiveness of an intensive biofeedback intervention using sEMG in a sample of people with dysphagia and IPD. Valid and reliable outcome measures were used and repeated after a 3‐month period. The feasibility of the methodological approach was also tested and a qualitative component was included in the study. Positive findings were evident. Qualitative information added new perspectives and provided direction for new outcomes to be included in future studies. This study helps to inform further research trials as well as clinical practice. Clinical implications of this study: This intensive intervention using principles of neuroplasticity and motor programming with sEMG biofeedback led not only to positive swallowing outcomes but also to unexpected benefits such as improved voice production and general attention skills. No adverse events were reported. Improvement in function was retained at 3 months post‐intervention. Despite the small sample size, participants described the benefits of the treatment, and enjoyed sEMG biofeedback tasks, especially using an sEMG game mode. This suggests that intensive biofeedback not only improved swallowing but also was acceptable to these participants. This intensive protocol has merit and is worth considering further in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech disorders in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP±L) are complex given the magnitude of influencing factors. Providing intervention to eliminate these speech errors is often challenging. Speech–language pathologists (SLPs) might have negative perceptions of the treatment of children with a CP±L. Aims: To explore how community SLPs perceive and experience the provision of speech intervention to children with a CP±L. Methods & Procedures: A total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 62 years, were included in this study. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted. The interviews were analysed using an inductive thematic approach aiming to identify themes driven by the data. Trustworthiness of the data was achieved by including researcher triangulation (involving three researchers with different research backgrounds) and deviant case analysis of two cases. Outcomes & Results: Initial responses demonstrated that the community SLPs were excited and enthusiastic to treat children with a CP±L. Expanding on these initial reports, however, they revealed that their excitement turned into professional self‐doubt and insecurity when confronted with the treatment challenges inherent with this population. To cope with this self‐doubt, they outlined several responsibilities for the cleft team SLPs. They expressed a strong desire to receive confirmation and approval on their treatment practices from more experienced SLPs (i.e., the cleft team SLPs). Their perceptions were dominated by a polarized thinking pattern. Treatment approaches were divided in categories as 'right' or 'wrong' and 'good' or 'bad'. Conclusions & Implications: The community SLPs are lacking professional confidence when treating children with a CP±L. They put themselves in a subordinate position towards the cleft team SLPs and expect the latter to provide ready‐made answers to problems and questions. This expectation can perhaps be explained by their fear of making mistakes during therapy preventing treatment progress. If they handle in accordance with the experts' advice, they cannot blame themselves in cases where no treatment progress is seen. Educational programmes need to pay more attention to gaining professional confidence (in the search for the most optimal treatment approach for each individual patient) rather than merely focusing on competency‐based learning tools. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Speech disorders in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP±L) are complex given the magnitude of influencing factors. Providing intervention to eliminate these speech errors is often challenging. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study explored how community SLPs' perceive and experience the provision of speech intervention to children with a CP±L. The perceptions of community SLPs are dominated by a polarized thinking pattern. Treatment approaches are divided into categories as "right" or "wrong" and "good" or "bad". They lack professional confidence when they treat children with a CP±L. The community SLPs put themselves in a subordinate position towards the cleft team SLPs and expect the latter to provide ready‐made answers to problems and questions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Educational programs in speech‐language pathology need to pay more attention to gaining professional confidence rather than merely focusing on competency‐based learning tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National UK guidance makes recommendations for speech and language therapy staffing levels in critical care and rehabilitation settings. Traumatic spinal cord injury patients often require admission primarily to critical care services within a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit but may not receive similar levels of care. Dysphagia and communication difficulties are recognised features of cervical spinal cord injury; however, little is known about access to speech and language therapy services to provide rehabilitation and improve outcomes. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the workforce and clinical practices of speech and language therapy services in eight spinal injury units and four major trauma centres in England through an online survey. Methods & Procedures: An online survey was created with 26 multiple‐choice questions across seven sub‐sections, with options for free‐text comments. These were sent to a named speech and language therapy contact at each of the specified units. Responses were uploaded into Excel for analyses, which included descriptive statistics and analysis of themes. Outcomes & Results: Responses were received from 92% (11/12) speech and language therapy services invited, which included seven out of eight spinal injury units and all four major trauma centres. No units met national staffing recommendations. Staff in spinal injury units provided an average of 27 h per week input to the unit compared to 80 h in a major trauma centre. Despite caseload variations, speech and language range of therapy involvement and prioritisation process were equivalent. Access to instrumental assessment varied, with less use of Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in spinal injury units despite its clinical value to the spinal cord injury caseload. Conclusions & Implications: Speech and language therapy services delivering post‐acute and long‐term rehabilitation to spinal cord injury patients are limited by their resources and capacity, which restricts the level of therapy delivered to patients. This may have an impact on clinical outcomes for communication and swallowing impairments. Further evidence is needed of the interventions delivered by speech and language therapists and outcomes will be beneficial alongside benchmarking similar services. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: In England, people who sustain a spinal cord injury are admitted to a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit. Dysphagia and communication impairments are recognised as a complication of cervical spinal cord injury and benefit from speech and language therapy intervention. National recommendations exist for staffing levels, expertise and competencies for speech and language therapists working in critical care and rehabilitation units. What this study adds: This study identified variations in the levels of speech and language therapy staffing, seniority, service delivery and access to instrumental assessments for dysphagia between major trauma centres and spinal injury units. None of the services complied with national staffing recommendations. Clinical implications of this study: Speech and language therapy services in spinal injury units are often available part‐time or have limited access to diagnostic tools which limits the range and intensity of rehabilitation input available. This has clinical implications for outcomes for swallowing and communication as well as long‐term consequences for integrating back into community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Subjective well‐being (SWB) and quality of life (QOL) are intricately related constructs. Recent research shows both constructs share some facets, but are distinct entities. It is unclear, both internationally and in the Netherlands, if and how SLTs address SWB in clinical practice. The current study was set up to explore Dutch SLTs' perceptions of SWB in relation to the management of people with aphasia. Aims: To describe how Dutch SLTs, working with people with aphasia in a private practice or a healthcare setting, address patient's SWB during diagnosis and treatment, and to identify barriers and facilitators they experience when addressing SWB. Methods & Procedures: A qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach was used. SLTs from private practices and healthcare settings were invited to participate in individual interviews and a focus group. The data were analysed thematically using a combination of inductive and deductive methods. Outcomes & Results: Eight SLTs participated in the study. The SLTs' experiences were captured in four themes that emerged from the data: (1) SWB is a multifaceted concept and depends on patient‐specific factors: premorbid factors, life priorities and time post‐stroke; (2) SLTs experience more responsibility for patients' SWB than their profession allows; (3) collaboration between SLTs and patients, patients' network and other healthcare professionals is required to address SWB during diagnosis and treatment; and (4) misinterpretations are inevitable when SLTs or the patients' network address patients' SWB. Conclusions & Implications: The results showed that SLTs feel responsible for addressing SWB in the management of people with aphasia. Their perception of the concept of SWB is similar to the definition used in the literature and is multifaceted. They feel responsible for the part of SWB that is related to communicative functioning, but less so for the more heuristic aspects of SWB. This is related to their experienced limitation of influence on SWB, which for some leaves them feeling out of depth and uncertain about boundaries between professionals. Addressing SWB in a multidisciplinary team is therefore considered important in order to adequately and fully capture someone's SWB and reduce to clinicians' experienced burden and responsibility. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectRecent studies suggest that quality of life measures may lack facets related to subjective well‐being (SWB). Aphasia is likely to impact on SWB of a stroke survivor, but it is unclear if and how SWB is addressed by speech and language therapists in diagnosis, and treatment of Dutch PWA.What this study addsThis study provides insight into the operationalization of SWB in Dutch clinical practice, including barriers SLTs experience when addressing SWB.Clinical implications of this studyMonitoring and influencing SWB of people with aphasia is a complex process, that SLTs consider only possible in multi‐disciplinary teams. Clear guidelines on roles and responsibilities between various disciplines involved are necessary to improve care for people with aphasia. [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]