Search

Background: People with an acquired brain injury (ABI) find it challenging to use social media due to changes in their cognition and communication skills. Using social media can provide opportunities for positive connection, but there is a lack of interventions specifically designed to support safe and successful social media use after ABI. Aims: To investigate the outcomes of completing a social media skills intervention and identify barriers and facilitators for future implementation. Methods & Procedures: The study used a mixed‐methods, pre‐post‐intervention design. A total of 17 adults with an ABI were recruited. Participants completed an intervention that included a short self‐guided course about social media skills (social‐ABI‐lity course), and then participated in a private, moderated Facebook group over a 12‐week period (social‐ABI‐lity Facebook group). Data were collected over this period through observation of group activity and weekly surveys. They were also collected on social media use and quality of life at pre‐intervention, post‐intervention and after 3 months. Participants provided feedback on the experience of participating in the programme via a post‐intervention interview. Outcomes & Results: At post‐intervention, there were significant improvements in confidence in using Facebook (p = 0.002) and enjoyment of using Facebook to connect with others (p = 0.013). There was no significant change in reported quality of life, although participants described the multiple benefits of connection they perceived from involvement in the group. Observational data and feedback interviews were informative about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Conclusions & Implications: This pilot study provided preliminary evidence that an intervention comprising a short, self‐guided training course and a private, moderated Facebook group improved outcomes for people with ABI. Key recommendations for future implementation include embedding active peer moderators within groups and taking an individualized approach to delivery of the intervention. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Research has documented the challenges that people with ABI experience in using social media, and the difficulty for rehabilitation clinicians in providing appropriate support in this field. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This pilot study reports the outcomes of people with ABI completing a short, self‐guided social media skills course and participating in a private, moderated Facebook group. After the intervention, participants reported significantly increased confidence and enjoyment in using Facebook, described the benefits of connection found in the groups, and suggested potential improvements for future implementation. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: With the growing use of social media for connection and participation, there is a professional obligation to address social media communication skills in cognitive–communication rehabilitation for people with ABI. The findings of this study will inform interventions and future research to assist people with ABI to build their social media skills for communication, social support and a sense of connection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) is a patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure the extent of interference, or difficulty, experienced by adults with communication disorders participating in their day‐to‐day communication activities. To date, there is limited evidence regarding sensitivity of the CPIB for capturing change with intervention in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine the following measurement properties of the CPIB in PwPD who received community‐based, standard care, speech‐language therapy focusing on motor speech concerns: Change over time between treatment and observation groups, comparison to patient‐defined ideal and satisfactory targets, comparison of static short form to computerised adaptive testing (CAT), comparison of self to proxy‐rated scores, and comparison to other common PROMs. Methods and Procedures: Forty‐six PwPD (20 treatment/26 observation) completed data collection upon enrolment (pre‐treatment) and 6 months later. In addition to the CPIB, PROMs included the Voice Handicap Index 10‐item short form (VHI‐10), PROMIS Global Health‐Related Quality of Life, Levels of Speech Usage, self‐rated speech severity, and Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9). Participants also engaged in qualitative interviews. Forty‐four family members completed proxy CPIB ratings. Outcomes and Results: There were no significant differences between treatment and observation groups on the CPIB pre‐treatment, but there were significant differences post‐treatment. The differences appeared to be largely due to significant gains in the treatment group. No participants reached their ideal CPIB target, and few reached their satisfactory target. Static CPIB short form and CAT scores were not significantly different, with an average of five CAT items administered per participant. Overall group similarities between patient and proxy scores may have obscured wide variability across individual patient‐proxy pairs. Associations between CPIB and VHI‐10, health‐related quality of life, self‐reported speech severity, and depression ranged from weak to moderate. Conclusions and Implications: The CPIB appears to be sensitive to capturing change with intervention, and similar results are obtained with the static short form and CAT formats. One clinical caution is that even with gains observed in the treatment group, no participants obtained their ideal communicative participation goals, and few obtained a satisfactory level of communicative participation. Thus, while current interventions are beneficial, they may not meet the full range of clients' communication needs. While responding to the CPIB through a proxy rater may be feasible, caution is warranted due to concerns about maintaining the autonomy of PwPD. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: The communication disorders associated with Parkinson's disease (PD) can have a negative impact on quality of life and life participation as measured by patient (or person)‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) is one PROM available to use with adults with communication disorders. However, little is known about whether the CPIB captures changes in communicative participation as a result of standard care treatment for people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). Use of computerised adaptive testing (CAT), proxy report and comparison to targeted participation outcomes have not been explored. What this study adds to existing knowledge: As a result of this study, we know that the CPIB captured differences between treatment and observation groups after community‐based, standard care speech therapy intervention focusing on motor speech production in PwPD. Static short form and CAT scores did not differ significantly, so the CAT option provides better efficiency requiring, on average, five items to administer compared to the 10‐item short form. Proxy and PwPD scores did not differ as a group, but wide variability was noted. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The CPIB may be a clinically sensitive instrument for capturing changes in communicative participation after treatment. No participants met their ideal CPIB target, and few reached their satisfactory target, suggesting that while current interventions contribute to gains in communicative participation, there are still unmet needs that may call for support and interventions addressing the more complex array of factors affecting communicative participation outcomes for PwPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communication difficulties are common in people with dementia, and often present from an early stage. However, direct treatment options for people with dementia that positively influence their daily communication are scarce. Aims: To evaluate the potential impact and feasibility of a personalized logopaedic intervention. Methods & Procedures: A total of 40 community‐dwelling persons with dementia and their caregivers were recruited. Five experienced speech and language therapists (SLTs) delivered the six‐session Com‐mens intervention at home. Com‐mens aims to improve positive communication between people with dementia and their primary caregivers and comprises five elements: interactive history‐taking, dynamic observational assessment, education about the consequences of dementia on communication, development and use of personalized communication tools, use motivational, and person‐centred strategies by the SLT. We conducted a single‐group mixed‐methods pilot study with five measurements: baseline, directly after intervention, and at 3, 6 and 9 months follow‐up. Semi‐structured interviews and questionnaires for Experienced Communication in Dementia, quality of life, psychological well‐being and caregiver burden were conducted. Process evaluation was performed by interviewing participants, drop‐outs, SLTs and other stakeholders. Outcomes & Results: A total of 32 dyads completed the intervention. Repeated measures analyses revealed no significant changes over time. In the interviews, participants reported a positive impact on their feelings, increased communication skills and better coping with the diagnosis. Participants would recommend the intervention to others. Facilitators were timely delivery, personalized content and adequate reimbursement. Barriers were unfamiliarity with Com‐mens among referrers, an overburdened caregiver or disrupted family relationships. Conclusions & Implications: This newly developed logopaedic intervention is feasible and has a perceived positive impact on both people with dementia and their caregivers, which is confirmed by a stable pattern over a period of 1 year. Future comparative studies are needed to test the effectiveness of personalized interventions in this patient population. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject?: SLTs are experts in the field of communication, but even though communication problems are common between people with dementia and their caregivers, there is a lack of logopaedic guidelines and materials for the direct treatment for this population. Interventions that are available either focus on (professional) caregivers only or aim to enhance cognitive functioning and do not target on joined communication. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge?: A newly developed intervention called Com‐mens can be provided by trained SLTs and takes an average of six 1‐h sessions. The intervention is perceived to be valuable and feasible for people with dementia and their caregivers, by the participants themselves, as well as by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Dissemination of this intervention will give SLTs skills, tools and materials to provide meaningful care to home‐dwelling persons with dementia and their caregivers. Also, persons with dementia and their caregivers will receive education and materials that can help them increase their understanding of communication problems, enhance their communication skills and better cope with the communication problems that result from dementia. We consider the Com‐mens intervention to be a valuable addition to the field of speech language therapy and dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Improvements in treatment of head‐and‐neck cancer (HNC) have resulted in improved long‐term survival rates so there is a growing interest in long‐term consequences. Objective: The aim was to perform a smartphone‐based assessment to analyse the upper airway dysfunction‐related symptoms in HNC 1 year after radiotherapy (RT) during social distancing due to COVID‐19. Methods & Procedures: Smartphone‐based assessment on upper airway function 1 year after RT was performed. Upper airway functions include perceived impact of voice on quality of life (Voice Handicap Index, VHI‐30), swallowing (Functional Oral Intake, FOIS; and Swallowing Quality of Life questionnaire, SWAL‐QOL) and sleep‐disordered breathing (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, PSQI) assessments. Additionally, quality of life was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire. Outcomes & Results: The HNC group presented worse results in the VHI‐30 scale, in the three subscales (p < 0.001). Swallowing function also presented worse results in the HNC group, with a lower score in the FOIS questionnaire (p < 0.001) and a poorer score in the SWAL‐QOL (p < 0.001). Regarding to the sleep‐disordered breathing, the HNC group presented poorer scores in all subscales (p < 0.05). The HNC group also presented worse scores in quality of life. Conclusion: Our findings showed that HNC survivors presented a poorer upper airway function and a worse quality of life. This population needs to be systematically screened for those function impairments. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Head‐and‐neck cancer radiotherapy treatment is anatomically related to the upper airway, involved in several functions such as breathing, swallowing and speech that could be affected by the treatment. Public health restrictions caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic have made it difficult, and in many cases impossible, to see patients in person and complete assessments that are often crucial to improve their approach. Telephone interviews appear to be largely equivalent to face‐to‐face interviews, which could solve these problems. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The aim of this study was to perform a smartphone‐based assessment to analyse the upper airway dysfunction‐related symptoms in head‐and‐neck cancer survivors 1 year after radiotherapy treatment. Our findings showed that head‐and‐neck cancer survivors who have been treated with radiotherapy presented a poorer upper airway function, with subjective speech and voice problems, swallowing and sleep‐disordered breathing compared to a control group matched for age and sex 1 year after the treatment. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The results of this study will allow a better approach to treatment of head‐and‐neck cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increasing number of children in the UK and Ireland are growing up speaking more than one language. The many advantages of bilingualism are acknowledged; however, this increased linguistic diversity presents particular challenges for speech and language therapists (SLTs). The case is often more complex with speakers of minority languages such as Welsh and Irish, which are acquired almost exclusively in bilingual contexts. Lack of appropriate standardized assessments for bilinguals is a key issue for SLTs internationally; however, little is known about the practices, personal perspectives or wider challenges faced by SLTs in assessing minority language skills. We focus on SLTs working with English–Irish bilinguals across Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI) where status, use and exposure to Irish differ significantly. Aims: To investigate the perceptions and practices of SLTs in NI and the ROI in the assessment of bilingual English–Irish‐speaking children. Methods & Procedures: A 33‐item online survey was distributed to SLTs working with children in community settings in NI and the ROI. Outcomes & Results: A total of 181 SLTs completed the survey. The majority of respondents had bilingual English–Irish‐speaking children on their caseloads; however, less than one‐quarter had assessed Irish language skills. Responses indicate confusion as to whether best‐practice guidelines applied in this particular context where the majority of speakers have English as their first language and limited domains of exposure to Irish outside of the education system. Resources available to assess Irish language skills were found to be limited. Informal analysis of language samples emerged as the most popular assessment tool. SLTs in the ROI had a significantly higher level of competence in the Irish language than SLTs in NI. This reduced the challenge of assessment. Many SLTs reported scoring assessments standardized on monolingual populations when assessing English language skills in bilingual English–Irish‐speaking children. Conclusions & Implications: Our findings highlight the challenges faced by SLTs in meeting best‐practice guidelines in the assessment of speakers of minority languages such as Irish. Further work is needed to ensure clinicians and other professionals have access to information and enhanced training on bilingual language acquisition in minority language contexts and implications for assessment and diagnosis. This study underlines the need for further research on the acquisition of minority languages as well as the development of alternative assessment tools to assist SLTs in meeting the needs of this population. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Existing research indicates that SLTs face challenges in assessing bilingual clients. Lack of assessment resources is a global issue, particularly with respect to minority languages. Emerging research indicates that SLTs and other professionals are dissatisfied with current resources for assessing Irish‐speaking bilinguals and are struggling to meet best‐practice guidelines. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The status of the Irish language differs significantly between NI and the ROI, while English is the dominant language in both areas. This study provides the first exploration of current assessment practices for bilingual English–Irish‐speaking children as reported by SLTs across both regions. The challenges of assessing bilingual clients in many other countries are mirrored by SLTs in NI and the ROI. The majority of children acquiring Irish are doing so in a specific context: the immersion education setting. This raises uncertainty for SLTs about whether the definition of bilingualism actually applies. Despite clinicians and clients sharing the same majority language, the complexity of minority language assessment remains. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: SLTs require specific support and resources to help them meet the assessment needs of bilingual English–Irish‐speaking children. Ongoing education and training are required for clinicians and other professionals to facilitate understanding of the complexities surrounding bilingual speakers of minority languages and the application of best‐practice guidelines. A greater understanding of the context in which children are acquiring Irish and the impact this may have on their acquisition of English would further support clinicians in identifying speech, language and communication needs in this population. [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]