Search

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]

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 and Aims: Long‐acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) is a new treatment for opioid use disorder that is generating positive outcomes. Negative effects are typically mild and transient, but can occasionally be serious, resulting in treatment discontinuation/non‐adherence. This paper aims to analyse patients' accounts of how they felt during the first 72 h after initiating LAIB. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted (June 2021–March 2022) with 26 people (18 males and 8 females) who had started LAIB within the previous 72 h. Participants were recruited from treatment services in England and Wales and were interviewed by telephone using a topic guide. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed and coded. The concepts of embodiment and embodied cognition framed the analyses. Data on participants' substance use, initiation onto LAIB and feelings were tabulated. Next, participants' accounts of how they felt were analysed following the stages of Iterative Categorization. Results: Participants reported complex combinations of changing negative and positive feelings. Bodily experiences included withdrawal symptoms, poor sleep, injection‐site pain/soreness, lethargy and heightened senses inducing nausea ('distressed bodies'), but also enhanced somatic wellbeing, improved sleep, better skin, increased appetite, reduced constipation and heightened senses inducing pleasure ('returning body functions'). Cognitive responses included anxiety, uncertainties and low mood/depression ('the mind in crisis') and improved mood, greater positivity and reduced craving ('feeling psychologically better'). Whereas most negative effects reported are widely recognized, the early benefits of treatment described are less well‐documented and may be an overlooked distinctive feature of LAIB. Conclusions: During the first 72 h after initiating long‐acting injectable buprenorphine, new patients report experiencing a range of interconnected positive and negative short‐term effects. Providing new patients with information about the range and nature of these effects can prepare them for what to expect and help them manage feelings and reduce anxiety. In turn, this may increase medication adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National UK guidance makes recommendations for speech and language therapy staffing levels in critical care and rehabilitation settings. Traumatic spinal cord injury patients often require admission primarily to critical care services within a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit but may not receive similar levels of care. Dysphagia and communication difficulties are recognised features of cervical spinal cord injury; however, little is known about access to speech and language therapy services to provide rehabilitation and improve outcomes. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the workforce and clinical practices of speech and language therapy services in eight spinal injury units and four major trauma centres in England through an online survey. Methods & Procedures: An online survey was created with 26 multiple‐choice questions across seven sub‐sections, with options for free‐text comments. These were sent to a named speech and language therapy contact at each of the specified units. Responses were uploaded into Excel for analyses, which included descriptive statistics and analysis of themes. Outcomes & Results: Responses were received from 92% (11/12) speech and language therapy services invited, which included seven out of eight spinal injury units and all four major trauma centres. No units met national staffing recommendations. Staff in spinal injury units provided an average of 27 h per week input to the unit compared to 80 h in a major trauma centre. Despite caseload variations, speech and language range of therapy involvement and prioritisation process were equivalent. Access to instrumental assessment varied, with less use of Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in spinal injury units despite its clinical value to the spinal cord injury caseload. Conclusions & Implications: Speech and language therapy services delivering post‐acute and long‐term rehabilitation to spinal cord injury patients are limited by their resources and capacity, which restricts the level of therapy delivered to patients. This may have an impact on clinical outcomes for communication and swallowing impairments. Further evidence is needed of the interventions delivered by speech and language therapists and outcomes will be beneficial alongside benchmarking similar services. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: In England, people who sustain a spinal cord injury are admitted to a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit. Dysphagia and communication impairments are recognised as a complication of cervical spinal cord injury and benefit from speech and language therapy intervention. National recommendations exist for staffing levels, expertise and competencies for speech and language therapists working in critical care and rehabilitation units. What this study adds: This study identified variations in the levels of speech and language therapy staffing, seniority, service delivery and access to instrumental assessments for dysphagia between major trauma centres and spinal injury units. None of the services complied with national staffing recommendations. Clinical implications of this study: Speech and language therapy services in spinal injury units are often available part‐time or have limited access to diagnostic tools which limits the range and intensity of rehabilitation input available. This has clinical implications for outcomes for swallowing and communication as well as long‐term consequences for integrating back into community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]