Search

Background and Objectives: Evidence suggests telehealth in speech and language therapy can enhance access to care, cost‐effectiveness and satisfaction. However, little is known about use of telehealth in the United Kingdom. Moreover, many assessments/outcome measures for aphasia have been tested for face‐to‐face administration only, posing challenges to reliable use within the telehealth context. We explored the experiences and views of speech and language therapists (SLTs) working with people with aphasia on using telehealth to conduct assessments/outcome measures, perceived barriers and facilitators in telehealth, and their priorities for research in telehealth aphasia assessment. Method: We explored views of UK SLTs through an online cross‐sectional survey (2021) delivered through the Qualtrics platform. The survey covered three main areas: (i) participant demographics; (ii) experience of using telehealth and doing telehealth assessments with people with aphasia post‐stroke during the COVID‐19 pandemic; and (iii) plans for telehealth post‐pandemic. Response formats included yes/no, multiple choice, 5‐point Likert scales and open‐ended text responses. The survey was expected to take no more than 10 min to complete. Survey data were analysed through descriptive statistics and content analysis of open‐ended questions. Results: One hundred twenty‐four SLTs responded to the survey. The majority (>80%) used telehealth during the COVID‐19 pandemic and >90% planned to continue to use telehealth in the future. The most used platforms were Zoom, Microsoft Teams and Attend Anywhere. Access to internet and telehealth platforms, and practical problems (e.g., difficulties sharing resources online, limited functionality of telehealth platforms for assessment) were common barriers. Therapists highlighted that training, resources and materials that assist the administration of assessments were important. Most participants responded that there was a need for existing measures to be tested for administration via telehealth (n = 68, 70.8%). Participants overall felt there was a need for online interactive assessments, more online resources that have been trialled for use via telehealth, accessible formats for resources for people with aphasia and clear instructions for how people with aphasia can access resources. Conclusions: This study provides new insights into the current use of telehealth assessment with people with aphasia in the United Kingdom and directions for future research. Barriers and facilitators identified can support the implementation of telehealth assessment in SLT services. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: The use of telehealth in speech and language therapy has advantages in terms of access to care, cost‐effectiveness and satisfaction with care. However, little is known about the use of telehealth in aphasia rehabilitation in the United Kingdom, especially in the area of assessment and outcome measurement. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study identified that the majority (>80%) of aphasia therapists used telehealth during the COVID‐19 pandemic and >90% planned to continue to use telehealth in the future. A need was identified for existing measures to be tested for administration via telehealth and for training, resources (e.g., online interactive assessments) and materials (e.g., accessible formats for people with aphasia). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: To facilitate the successful implementation of telehealth assessment, there is a need for measures validated for use via telehealth and more online resources that have been trialled for use via telehealth. [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: Supporting psychosocial well‐being in aphasia is necessarily person‐centred, interdisciplinary and coordinated. Shortcomings in such support are described in Ireland and elsewhere. Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are integral; and describing current practice and barriers they experience is important for enhancing service delivery. Aims: To understand how SLTs enact, and are supported to enact, aphasia psychosocial care in Ireland. Methods & Procedures: This is a cross‐sectional, online, self‐administered clinician survey targeting SLTs working minimally 1 year post‐qualification with persons with aphasia of any aetiology in Ireland. The survey questions were charted against key constructs of the implementation science framework, normalization process theory (NPT), and descriptive statistics were applied. Outcomes & Results: A total of 54 eligible datasets were included. SLTs believed psychosocial support to be part of their role, but perceived multiple barriers in enacting it. These included a lack of training, clinical supervision, management support, role recognition, and access to and joint working with mental health professionals and services. Conclusions & Implications: SLTs in Ireland face a range of individual and structural barriers, including care coordination and resourcing. There is a clear need not only for training, upskilling and mentorship, but also for wider changes around access to mental health professionals and clarity around the processes of referral, coordination and integration of aphasia care across settings. These findings comprise preliminary insights into current practices. Further research is needed as well as clarity on best‐practice pathways for different aetiologies of aphasia. Articulating current practices using NPT may have utility for developing empirically informed and principled interventions to improve service delivery. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: People with aphasia of all aetiologies are at risk of psychosocial problems. Shortcomings in access and the availability of appropriate support have been documented both internationally and in Ireland. To address this issue, an important first step is to understand how SLTs in Ireland currently enact and are supported to enact aphasia psychosocial care. What this study adds to the existing knowledge: The findings describe the potential levers and barriers to progressing aphasia psychosocial care in Ireland. A range of individual, team and structural factors were identified. These were locally contextualized but similar issues are reported in other countries. Linking attitudes with NPT constructs provides a first step for further principled implementation projects. What are the practical and clinical implications of this study?: Addressing psychosocial problems is perceived as a legitimate part of the speech and language therapy role. SLTs in Ireland enact a range of therapeutic approaches but may need opportunities for formal training and supervision, and for better coordination and integration with other mental health services and disciplines. Understanding differences in care pathways across the range of aphasia aetiologies is additionally important given the emphasis on post‐stroke aphasia in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]