Search

Background: Treatment fidelity refers to the degree to which an intervention is implemented as intended. Promoting treatment fidelity is important to achieve a valid comparison in intervention research. However, it is often underreported: few studies detail the use and development of fidelity measures. This study aims to promote the treatment fidelity of a modified version of the Derbyshire Language Scheme (M‐DLS), a manualised intervention for children with language difficulties, by exploring participants' opinions on training and intervention delivery. Results inform development of a checklist and scoring system to monitor and promote treatment fidelity in a comparison trial. Method: Ten student speech and language therapists (SLTs) and two research assistants (RAs) participated in the study. All received training on the M‐DLS, and 10 were video‐recorded completing role‐plays of an M‐DLS session in small groups. Feedback was gathered after training and role‐plays in focus groups and interviews. Feedback was interpreted using the constructs of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). A treatment fidelity checklist was then developed using the feedback. The first author and two RAs rated role‐play videos using the checklist to trial it to inform amendments and to promote interrater reliability. Interrater agreement was calculated using Spearman's test of correlation. Results: Participants discussed the importance of having clear materials and time to practise sessions. They suggested amendments to the materials and training to promote treatment fidelity. The checklist and scoring system accounted for participants' suggestions, with amendments detailed in a log. Spearman's correlation results suggested agreement between the raters was strong. Conclusions: Results emphasise the importance of training quality, practice and reflective opportunities and clear materials to promote treatment fidelity. The construction of the checklist and scoring system was described in detail, informing the development of future checklists. After further trialling, the checklist can be used to ensure the M‐DLS is delivered with high treatment fidelity in the comparison trial. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: Treatment fidelity is an essential component of intervention effectiveness and efficacy studies, ensuring the intervention is delivered as intended. It is also an essential component of evidence-based clinical practice. However, few research studies report the treatment fidelity process or publish the checklists used, depriving clinicians of useful information for implementation. What this study adds: This study describes in detail the iterative process of treatment fidelity checklist development, engaging those implementing the intervention in development. This ensured clarity and interrater reliability of the checklist. Furthermore, a novel scoring system was developed so that accuracy of implementation can be easily compared across users and across practice attempts. What are the clinical implications of this work?: The importance of treatment fidelity when implementing effective and efficacious interventions cannot be overstated. The treatment fidelity checklist developed for research can be easily adopted to support accurate implementation in clinical practice through an audit process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapy (SLT) education must meet the needs of the future workforce, training enough students who are competent practitioners able to meet the workforce demands. Increasing student numbers and the impact on placement providers mean students must be equipped for learning on placement. Simulation is a way of supporting students to develop their clinical skills and decision‐making in a safe, supportive environment. Aims: To explore the perspectives of SLT students who were introduced to simulation during their undergraduate degree at a UK university as part of a pilot study. The aim of the pilot was to listen to the students' voices to begin to understand their lived experiences of simulation and to gather views on how simulation can support their clinical learning. Methods & Procedures: Focus groups and semi‐structured interviews were carried out with second‐year BSc SLT students in semester 2 following the simulated learning activities and clinical placement. Qualitative data were gathered and thematic analysis was applied to the data to identify the barriers and enablers to students' clinical learning in simulation. Outcomes & Results: A total of 11 students responded out of a cohort of 38. Three key themes were identified from the analysis: individual learning needs, facilitator skill and programme‐level organization. Conclusions & Implications: Student experience of simulation was positive. One of the key elements students found to support their clinical skills was the importance of the safe space; support for learning instead of correction led them to engage in active learning. Key barriers to simulation related to having sufficient prior knowledge, the skills of the facilitator, group size and the wider learning landscape of the programme. In response to this pilot, there are plans to continue developing this model of simulation and embed simulation across the programme, led by a sound pedagogical approach with clear preparation and planning and building the necessary infrastructure. Other SLT programmes and practice educators developing simulation as part of their programmes or placement may wish to consider some of these findings to support the use of simulation in their workplace. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: Simulation as a teaching methodology is widely used in medicine and nursing programmes. It is now used in various allied health professions and in some SLT programmes. There is evidence to suggest simulation increases student confidence and clinical skills without increasing the capacity on those offering clinical placements in practice. What is already known on this subject: This study offers a practical example of introducing simulation in an established undergraduate programme for SLT students. It explains the background to this innovative way of teaching clinical skills and explains why this approach could be beneficial for the future speech and language therapist. What are the clinical implications of this work?: This study gives practical examples of how simulation can work to facilitate student clinical learning and knowledge. It may offer ideas to those working in clinical practice to organize placements differently or add simulation elements to improve the student experience. Other educational establishments and placement educators may find the recommendations helpful in developing their own simulation approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: At least 25% of autistic children worldwide have the potential to grow up in a bilingual environment. However, many autistic children are being denied opportunities to access additional languages and the cultural, familial and community connections that come with this. There is little evidence identifying the barriers to language learning and access, and no research addressing the perspectives of speech and language therapists (SLTs), who are crucial in supporting parents to make informed choices about bilingualism with their child. Aims: The aim of this research was to understand the experiences of SLTs working with autistic bilingual children, to understand the main considerations when working with families, and the opportunities and barriers for training, including the sources of information that current practice is based on. Methods and Procedures: Twelve SLTs from across the United Kingdom were recruited for this study. All participants were experienced in working with autistic bilingual children and their families (M = 7 years, range 4–23 years). Semi‐structured interviews were conducted and focused on the experiences of SLTs regarding familial bilingual experiences, the effect of sociocultural factors of practice, and the extent to which practice is based on current research. Outcomes and Results: Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Three central themes were identified from the interviews: (1) participants discussed parental uncertainties as to whether they were doing the right thing for their child, (2) while participants were in support of bilingualism, they were not always confident that they were providing the right advice and found it difficult to in keep up to date with relevant, evidence‐based research, and (3) participants highlighted a need to shift towards a more inclusive and culturally diverse practice. Conclusions and Implications: This is the first qualitative study to understand the perspectives of SLTs working with autistic bilingual children. We identify several key difficulties in supporting access to language learning, and these findings have immediate and longer‐term implications for supporting SLTs, and in turn, the children and families they support. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Research suggests that autistic children currently have fewer opportunities to maintain bilingualism compared to neurotypical peers. Despite the lack of evidence, many families remain concerned that bilingualism will have a negative impact on their child's development. To date, little is known about the perspectives of speech and language therapists (SLTs) who play a significant role in supporting the development of autistic bilingual children. This is the first study to provide an in‐depth qualitative analysis of the experiences of SLTs working with autistic bilingual children and their families in the United Kingdom. What this study adds: The results highlight a number of reoccurring barriers in providing optimal support: first, frequently cited concerns about bilingualism from parents that link to a lack of understanding about autism and the role of SLTs more generally. Second, SLTs do not have confidence in the assessments and tools available and described a lack of emphasis on cultural factors in practice. Many SLTs were concerned about the limited options for resources and interventions available in other languages, which could be challenging for parents who were less proficient or confident communicating in English. Third, SLTs reported having limited opportunities to keep up to date with relevant research to support their decision‐making processes. What are the clinical implications of this work?: These results have several important implications for practice—they highlight the need for more inclusive practices where possible, a need for more diversity within the profession and further opportunities to be provided with evidence‐based advice around good practice. The results also suggest a benefit of providing accessible, evidence‐based resources for parents about autism and bilingualism, to ensure that research key findings are reaching families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]