Search

Background: Early language delay is exacerbated by social disadvantage. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self‐perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. Methods used to achieve successful health outcomes in socially disadvantaged clinical populations may need enhancing. Aims: To compare the impact of standard parent‐based intervention (PBI) to enhanced PBI for young children with speech, language and communication needs (SCLN) and their families living in more socially disadvantaged populations. Methods and Procedures: A multicentre clustered blind randomised controlled trial was used to compare the effect of parent‐based group interventions to improve early language development with children (mean age 27.5 months) from more socially disadvantaged populations with an expressive vocabulary of 40 or less single words. Intervention sessions were delivered by a speech and language therapist, over a 20‐week period. Participants received one of two interventions: (1) Standard Care – indirect group PBI – (PBI) (2) Enhanced Care: indirect group enhanced PBI – (EPBI). Both standardised and non‐standardised measures were used as outcomes. Parent engagement in the intervention was captured through analysis of attendance and the Parent Activation Measure – Speech & Language Therapy (PAM‐SLT) (Insignia Health, 2014). The PAM measures a person's knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their own health and well‐being (NHS England, 2018). In this study, activation referred to parents' knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their child's language development. Outcomes and Results: One hundred fifty‐five participants were randomised at baseline. Children in both groups made significant improvements in the outcome on MacArthur‐Bates Communicative Development Inventories Sentence Length, from pre‐intervention to post‐intervention and 6 months post‐intervention (p < 0.05). Changes in vocabulary and expressive language skills were more equivocal, showing wide variation in confidence intervals for both groups. Where parents attended at least one intervention session almost all effect sizes were in favour of the EPBI intervention. Parents' activation levels significantly increased for both groups (EPBI p < 0.001, PBI p = 0.003), with a moderate effect size in favour of EPBI (Hedges' G 0.37, confidence interval –0.02 to 0.76), although wide variation was found. Conclusions and Implications: This trial provides some evidence of facilitating the language development of children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting caregivers. However, we found variation in outcomes; some children made excellent progress, whilst others did not. Further exploration of parent engagement and its relationship to child language outcomes will be valuable to understanding more about mechanisms of change in interventions that involve parents. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) have a knock‐on effect on emotional well‐being, school readiness, literacy and school attainment, putting children at increased risk of long‐term consequences such as poor literacy, mental health problems and unemployment. In disadvantaged areas, the prevalence of language difficulties is higher than elsewhere. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self‐perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: Children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas can make improvements in their language development through parent intervention, although wide individual variation was found. There was some evidence that children achieve better outcomes with EPBI, which employed an interagency collaborative approach. Parent's engagement (activation levels) increased significantly over time with intervention, with the increase twice as big for EPBI. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This trial provides some evidence that it is possible to facilitate the language development of children from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting their caregivers. Further research would be useful to determine whether increases in parent engagement are related to adherence to intervention and change in child outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: We assessed experiences of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaginal self‐sampling and future screening preferences in an ethnically and socio‐economically diverse group of women overdue for cervical screening. Setting and Participants: A postal questionnaire was embedded in the YouScreen self‐sampling trial in England: 32.5% (2712/8338) of kit completers returned the survey. Kit non‐completers were encouraged to return a questionnaire, but no responses were received. Participants were ethnically diverse (40.3% came from ethnic minority backgrounds), and 59.1% came from the two most deprived quintiles. Differences in confidence in kit completion, trust in the test results and intention to attend a follow‐up test if HPV‐positive were evaluated using Pearson's χ2 analyses. Binary logistic regression models explored predictors of a future screening choice and preferences for urine versus vaginal self‐sampling. Results: Most kit‐completers reported high confidence in self‐sampling (82.6%) and high trust in the results (79.9%), but experiences varied by ethnicity and screening status. Most free‐text comments were positive but some reported difficulties using the device, pain or discomfort. Most women would opt for self‐sampling in the future (71.3% vs. 10.4% for a clinician‐taken test) and it was more often preferred by ethnic minority groups, overdue screeners and never attenders. Urine self‐tests were preferred to vaginal tests (41.9% vs. 15.4%), especially among women from Asian, Black or Other Ethnic backgrounds. Conclusions: Kit‐completers were confident, found the test easy to complete, and trusted the self‐sample results. However, experiences varied by ethnic group and some women highlighted difficulties with the kit. Most women would prefer self‐sampling in the future, but it was not a universal preference, so offering a choice will be important. Patient or Public Contribution: We did not have direct patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the questionnaire design. However, patients and public representatives did input into the design of the YouScreen trial and reviewed the wider study materials (e.g. participant information sheet). Trial Registration: This questionnaire study was embedded in the YouScreen trial. The protocol for the YouScreen trial is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12759467. The National Institute for Health Research 43 Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID is 4441934. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]