Search

Background: The aim of many interventions used by speech and language therapists (SLTs) is to change behaviours related to communication and interaction. Parent‐led language interventions for children in the early years (0–5 years) rely on SLTs supporting parents to change their behaviour in child‐focused interactions to effect a change in the child's communication. Therapeutic techniques used by SLTs in parent‐led language interventions are largely underspecified, impacting on intervention reporting, replication, trialling and development. The Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy Version 1 (BCTTv1) offers a method of describing intervention techniques developed for use in public health interventions, but with several examples of its application to speech and language interventions. Aims: To identify behaviour change techniques (BCTs) from the BCTTv1 occurring in parent‐led language interventions for children in the early years. Methods & Procedures: A literature search identified relevant descriptions of parent‐led language interventions. These were coded using the BCTTv1. A reliability check was carried out on 10% of the descriptions. To confirm the use of identified BCTs in clinical practice, results of the literature search were triangulated with an online survey of SLTs, and observations of SLTs delivering parent‐led language intervention. Outcomes & Results: A total of 84 papers containing descriptions of 45 interventions were coded; 62 SLTs responded to the survey and three SLTs were observed delivering parent‐led language intervention. A total of 24 BCTs were identified in the literature search, replicated in the observations and verified by SLTs in the survey. BCTs were identified at two levels: Level 1 SLT implemented to change parent interactive behaviour; and Level 2 parent implemented to change child communicative behaviour. Conclusions & Implications: The BCTTv1 is a useful starting place for describing parent‐led language interventions. With some additions and adjustments, BCTs identified in this study were immediately recognized by practitioners and can easily be adopted into practice. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Techniques used in SLT interventions are often not clearly described. The BCTTv1 has been used to clarify technique descriptions with success in a small number of SLT disciplines, but not yet in parent‐led language interventions for preschoola children. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This paper constitutes the first research into quantifying the techniques used in parent‐led language interventions using the BCTTv1. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This paper provides a clear list of techniques used by SLTs implementing interventions for preschool children, which can be immediately adopted and used in practice. It also highlights potential adjustments and gaps in the BCTTv1 in relation to SLT which can contribute to future iterations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many speech sound disorder (SSD) interventions with a long‐term evidence base are 'new' to clinical practice, and the role of services in supporting or constraining capacity for practice change is underexplored. Innovations from implementation science may offer solutions to this research–practice gap but have not previously been applied to SSD. Aim: To explain variation in speech and language therapy service capacity to implement new SSD interventions. Methods & Procedures: We conducted an intensive, case‐based qualitative study with 42 speech and language therapists (SLTs) in three NHS services (n = 39) and private practice (n = 3) in Scotland. We explored therapists' diverse experiences of SSD practice change through individual interviews (n = 28) or self‐generated paired (n = 2) or focus groups (n = 3). A theoretical framework (Normalization Process Theory) helped us understand how the service context contributed to the way therapists engaged with different practice changes. Outcomes & Results: We identified six types ('cases') of practice change, two of which involved the new SSD interventions. We focus on these two cases ('Transforming' and 'Venturing') and use Normalization Process Theory's Cognitive participation construct to explain implementation (or not) of new SSD interventions in routine practice. Therapists were becoming aware of the new interventions through knowledge brokers, professional networks and an intervention database. In the Transforming case, new SSD interventions for selected children were becoming part of local routine practice. Transforming was the result of a favourable service structure, a sustained and supported 'push' that made implementation of the new interventions a service priority, and considerable collective time to think about doing it. 'Venturing' happened where the new SSD interventions were not a service priority. It involved individual or informal groups of therapists trying out or using one or more of the new interventions with selected children within the constraints of their service context. Conclusions & implications: New, evidence‐based SSD interventions may be challenging to implement in routine practice because they have in common a need for therapists who understand applied linguistics and can be flexible with service delivery. Appreciating what it really takes to do routine intervention differently is vital for managers and services who have to make decisions about priorities for implementation, along with realistic plans for resourcing and supporting it. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Many SSD interventions have an evidence base but are not widely adopted into routine clinical practice. Addressing this is not just about individual therapists or education/training, as workplace pressures and service delivery models make it difficult to change practice. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This paper applies innovations from implementation science to help explain how what is going on in services can support or constrain capacity for implementing evidence‐based SSD interventions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Service managers and therapists will have a clearer idea of the time and support they may realistically have to invest for new SSD interventions to be used routinely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]