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: When parents bring their child to appointments and then adhere to agreed speech and language therapy (SLT) recommendations, there is the potential to increase the intensity of the intervention, support generalization and improve outcomes. In SLT, however, little is known about factors that may promote attendance or adherence. Studies in other clinical areas such in medicine, psychology and physiotherapy have identified risk factors for non‐attendance or non‐adherence that are multifactorial and variable dependent on, for example, population and intervention. Aims: To identify rates of non‐attendance and non‐adherence, and to identify parent or child factors associated with parent involvement in intervention for children under 5 years of age receiving SLT. Methods: Parents completed questionnaires at two time points assessing the domains of parents' beliefs (problem perceptions, self‐efficacy), personal circumstances (socio‐demographics, family functioning), treatment experience and child factors. Predictors of parent attendance and adherence were identified through multiple regression analyses. Non‐attendance rates were identified via local health records and non‐adherence ascertained using a specific parent‐reported measure within the treatment experience domain. Results: Participants (N = 199) were predominantly mothers, and were ethnically and socio‐economically diverse, speaking a wide range of languages. Their children presented with a range of speech, language communication needs (SLCN). The rate of non‐attendance was 25% and the main predictors of non‐attendance were maternal age, education level and two factors within the parent beliefs domain. This model explained 40% of the variance in attendance. The rate of non‐adherence in this cohort was 26% with parental rating of the importance of a recommendation and self‐efficacy beliefs predicting adherence; this explained 56% of the variance in adherence to SLT recommendations at home. Conclusions & Implications: Our research has provided preliminary evidence of the influence of parents' beliefs, personal circumstances and treatment experiences on their involvement in their child's therapy. Speech and language therapists should consider factors impacting attendance and adherence to treatment and explore parental perceptions of their child's SLCN before embarking on an intervention, a foundation for collaborative practice. A possible limitation of this study is that the levels of attrition in our sample led to generally high measured rates of participation, which should be considered in future studies. Future research should explore adherence in treatments with varying doses, with different types of SLCN or interventions and in different settings. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: It is acknowledged that parent involvement in their child's therapy, such as attending and adhering to recommendations, is important but little is known about the rates of involvement and what factors may be associated with attendance and adherence in SLT. Qualitative research has explored parental involvement suggesting that beliefs about an intervention may be pertinent. Extensive research in other clinical areas suggest multiple and varied factors are influential and further exploration of particular populations and interventions is necessary. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This study identified rates of parental non‐attendance and non‐adherence in a cohort of predominantly mothers of children under the age of 5 years. It is the first study to measure parent adherence in SLT and identify factors that are associated parental adherence to SLT recommendations. It adds to the small body of SLT specific research in understanding risk factors for non‐attendance. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study highlights the need for a speech and language therapist to consider and explore parents' perspectives of their child's SLCN as a part of achieving collaboration with a parent in order to achieve the best outcomes. It provides a foundation for further systematic research into parent involvement with the ultimate aim of enhancing outcomes for children with SLCN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early intervention is essential healthcare for stuttering, and the translation of research findings to community settings is a potential roadblock to it. Aims: This study was designed to replicate and extend the Lidcombe Program community translation findings of O'Brian et al. (2013) but with larger participant numbers, incorporating clinicians (speech pathologists/speech anlanguage therapists) and their clients from Australia and England. Methods & Procedures: Participants were 51 clinicians working in public and private clinics across Australia (n = 36) and England (n = 15), and 121 of their young stuttering clients and their families. Outcome measures were percentage of syllables stuttered (%SS), parent severity ratings at 9 months post‐recruitment, number of clinic visits to complete Stage 1 of the Lidcombe Program, and therapist drift. Outcomes & Results: Community clinicians in both countries achieved similar outcomes to those from randomized controlled trials. Therapist drift emerged as an issue with community translation. Speech and language therapists in England attained outcomes 1.0%SS above the speech pathologists in Australia, although their scores were within the range attained in randomized trials. Conclusions & Implications: Community clinicians from Australia and England can attain Lidcombe Program outcome benchmarks established in randomized trials. This finding is reassuring in light of the controlled conditions in clinical trials of the Lidcombe Program compared with its conduct in community practice. The long‐term impact of therapist drift in community clinical practice with the Lidcombe Program has yet to be determined. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: The Lidcombe Program is an efficacious early stuttering intervention. Translation to clinical communities has been studied with one Australian cohort. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: A larger translation cohort is studied, comprising community clinicians and children in Australia and England. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Community clinicians from Australia and England can attain Lidcombe Program outcome benchmarks established in randomized trials. This finding is reassuring in light of the controlled conditions in clinical trials of the Lidcombe Program compared with its conduct in community practice. [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]