Search

Background: Individuals with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) are at greater risk of contact with the criminal justice system. Diagnosis and appropriate treatment of SLCN reduces these risks, leading to better life outcomes for the individual as well as broader social and economic benefits. These youth represent a particularly high‐priority group for research into language deficits, as the juvenile justice system involves situations with a high risk or serious consequences that rely upon the application of effective language skills. Whilst some studies have established some gains in speech and communication from speech pathology (SP) interventions during custody, there is limited evidence on the long‐term impact of these gains following release from custody. Similarly, few studies have directly measured the cost savings associated with early SP on subsequent youth antisocial behaviour and crime. Aims: To estimate the youth antisocial behaviours, youth justice (YJ) contacts and associated costs (from a justice perspective) of childhood SLCN. Methods & Procedures: Using 12 years of data from a longitudinal study of Australian children and young people, we employ a panel fixed‐effects model to explore the relationship between SLCN and youth antisocial behaviour and youth offending between 12 and 17 years of age. Using these results, we estimate the cost of SLCN and subsequent cost savings associated with identification of SLCN. Outcomes & Results: The results showed that the annual cost of SLCN to the YJ system (exchange rate as at 9 December 2020) is A$875 (95% confidence interval (CI) = A$195, A$1916) (US$$649, €536, £485) per person who participates in youth crime, which is due to higher rates of youth antisocial behaviour and youth offending. Identification of SLCN (defined by SP treatment) appears to have a positive impact on youth antisocial behaviour and crime, mediated through improved language and communication. On average, young people with a history of 'identified' SLCN incur A$188 (95% CI = A$42, A$412) lower YJ costs (US$$140, €105, £115), compared with the same individual, before identification. Over the lifetime of the individual, this equates to A$9.2 million (95% CI = A$2.05 million, A$20.2 million) (US$$6.8 million, €5.6 million, £5.1 million) cost savings to the YJ system (A$3389 per person with SLCN) (2020 Australian dollars) (US$2513, €2074, £1880). Conclusions & Implications: Overall, the findings revealed that young people with SLCN have an elevated risk of youth antisocial behaviour and crime. However, the identification of SLCN (and subsequent treatment) leads to changes in the offending risk trajectory for these individuals, resulting in lower rates of youth antisocial behaviour and consequently lower rates of crime and its associated justice costs. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: It is well documented in the literature that young people in contact with the justice system have much higher rates of previously undiagnosed SLCN than those of the general population. There is less known about whether the identification of SLCN (and subsequent treatment) leads to changes in the offending risk trajectory for these individuals, leading to lower rates of youth antisocial behaviours and crime. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study uses a longitudinal survey of 5000 children and young people to track the antisocial behaviour and crime‐risk trajectory of children and young people with SLCN. The study finds evidence that young people with 'identified' SLCN report less juvenile antisocial behaviour and lower YJ contacts after intervention. The potential lifetime cost savings associated with intervention is A$9.2 million (95% CI = A$2.05 million, A$20.1 million) (US$$6.8 million, €5.6 million, £5.1 million). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The findings of this study can quantify the effects (in terms of cost savings to the justice system) of the early identification and subsequent intervention for young people with SLCN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite emerging evidence of validity and reliability, speech and language therapists' (SLT) uptake of telehealth has been limited and barriers remain to the effective and confident use of this service model. The COVID‐19 pandemic has caused significant disruption to essential health services, including speech and language therapy assessment and intervention, meaning that telehealth must now be considered as part of the suite of service delivery options for all clinicians. Aims: To explore the perceived barriers and facilitators of telehealth among community paediatric SLTs before and after their use of a telehealth platform with an embedded standardised assessment tool. Methods & Procedures: Mixed‐methods questionnaires were developed for this study and completed by SLTs before and after the 3‐month trial of the telehealth platform. A total of 38 SLTs completed the pre‐trial questionnaire and training in the use of telehealth platform (Coviu), including instruction in using a standardised, norm referenced language test as an integrated tool within the Coviu platform. A total of 27 SLTs went on to use the telehealth platform, and 25 of these completed the post‐trial questionnaire on which subsequent qualitative and quantitative analysis was completed. Outcomes & Results: Prior to using the platform, perceived barriers included technology issues, limited clinician experience and concerns around parent acceptance of the service. Potential facilitators included access to appropriate platforms, tools and resources as well as increased clinician confidence with telehealth. Following the trial, barriers to telehealth use continued to include technology barriers, particularly internet stability, and client issues, including suitability for telehealth services. Facilitators for future telehealth use included access to appropriate platforms for telehealth, stable and appropriate internet connectivity, and more extensive telehealth resources for both assessment and intervention for this mode of service delivery. Conclusions & Implications: This study provides insights into the perceptions of the barriers and facilitating factors for telehealth use among community‐based SLTs. This information will be useful in developing strategies to promote uptake and effective and confident use of telehealth as a mode of service delivery beyond the pandemic. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Research about telehealth has shown that it is a reliable and valid way of delivering speech pathology services, yet many clinicians have been wary of its use and uptake of telehealth prior to COVID‐19 had been limited. We wanted to know what SLTs thought about using telehealth before and after participating in a 3‐month trial of a telehealth platform with an embedded formal language assessment. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This study indicates that technology issues including internet stability are a barrier to effective telehealth services, but that appropriate telehealth platforms, resources and experience are facilitators of uptake and successful use of telehealth. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This information will be useful in developing strategies to promote uptake and effective and confident use of telehealth as a mode of service delivery for children during and beyond the pandemic, including those isolated by geographical or transport barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: When planning evidence‐based intervention services for children with phonology‐based speech sound disorders (SSD), speech and language therapists (SLTs) need to integrate research evidence regarding service delivery and intervention intensity within their clinical practice. However, relatively little is known about the optimal intensity of phonological interventions and whether SLTs’ services align with the research evidence. Aims: The aims are twofold. First, to review external evidence (i.e., empirical research evidence external to day‐to‐day clinical practice) regarding service delivery and intervention intensity for phonological interventions. Second, to investigate SLTs’ clinical practice with children with phonology‐based SSD in Australia, focusing on service delivery and intensity. By considering these complementary sources of evidence, SLTs and researchers will be better placed to understand the state of the external evidence regarding the delivery of phonological interventions and appreciate the challenges facing SLTs in providing evidence‐based services. Methods & Procedures: Two studies are presented. The first is a review of phonological intervention research published between 1979 and 2016. Details regarding service delivery and intervention intensity were extracted from the 199 papers that met inclusion criteria identified through a systematic search. The second study was an online survey of 288 SLTs working in Australia, focused on the service delivery and intensity of intervention provided in clinical practice. Main Contributions: There is a gap between the external evidence regarding service delivery and intervention intensity and the internal evidence from clinical practice. Most published intervention research has reported to provide intervention two to three times per week in individual sessions delivered by an SLT in a university clinic, in sessions lasting 30–60 min comprising 100 production trials. SLTs reported providing services at intensities below that found in the literature. Further, they reported workplace, client and clinician factors that influenced the intensity of intervention they were able to provide to children with phonology‐based SSD. Conclusions & Implications: Insufficient detail in the reporting of intervention intensity within published research coupled with service delivery constraints may affect the implementation of empirical evidence into everyday clinical practice. Research investigating innovative solutions to service delivery challenges is needed to provide SLTs with evidence that is relevant and feasible for clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]