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: 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]

Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) can affect social interaction and communication as well as motor and cognitive processes. Speech is affected in PD, as is the control of voluntary eye movements which are thought to play an important role in 'turn taking' in conversation. Aims: This study aimed to measure eye movements during spoken conversation in PD to assess whether differences in patterns of eye gaze are linked to disrupted turn taking and impaired communication efficiency. Methods & Procedure: Eleven participants with mild PD and 14 controls completed a two‐player guessing game. During each 3 min game turn, one of the players had to guess the names of as many objects as possible based only on the other player's description. Eye movements were recorded simultaneously in both participants using mobile eye trackers along with speech onset and offset times. Outcomes & Results: When people with PD played the role of describer, the other player guessed fewer objects compared to when controls described objects. When guessing objects, people with PD performed just as well as controls. Analysis of eye fixations showed that people with PD made longer periods of fixation on the other player's face relative to controls and a lower number of such 'gaze on face' periods. Conclusions & Implications: A combination of oculomotor, cognitive and speech abnormalities may disrupt communication in PD. Better public awareness of oculomotor, speech and other deficits in the condition could improve social connectedness in people with Parkinson's. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject?: Parkinson's disease is known to affect the control of voluntary eye movements. Direction of eye gaze is important in spoken conversation as a cue to turn‐taking, but no studies have examined whether eye movements are different during communication in people with Parkinson's. What this paper adds to existing knowledge?: People with Parkinson's showed longer periods of eye fixation during conversations compared to controls. Delays and overlaps between speech turns were also affected in patients. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Better knowledge of the effect of the disease on eye gaze control amongst clinicians may help improve communication and social connectedness for patients in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current research has identified how ethnic minority women experience poorer health outcomes during the perinatal period. In the United Kingdom, specialist perinatal mental health services provide mental health treatment for women throughout the perinatal period. Service users have previously highlighted that perinatal services are hard to access and lack cultural sensitivity, whereas healthcare professionals have described limited opportunities and resources for developing cultural competency. Objectives: We explored the experiences of ethnic minority women with National Health Service (NHS) specialist perinatal teams and identified what culturally sensitive perinatal mental health care means to this group. Design: Individual semi‐structured interviews were conducted, and an interpretative phenomenological analysis framework was used to analyse the interview transcripts. Setting and Participants: Participants were recruited from NHS specialist perinatal teams and online via social media. Results: Six women were interviewed. Four group experiential themes central to the experiences of participants emerged: (1) strengthening community networks and peer support; (2) valuing cultural curiosity; (3) making sense of how culture, ethnicity, race and racism impact mental health; and (4) tailoring interventions to ethnic minority women and their families. Discussion and Conclusions: The findings capture how ethnic minority women experience specialist perinatal teams and offer insights into practising culturally sensitive care. Perinatal mental health professionals can support ethnic minority women by strengthening their access to community resources and peer support; being curious about their culture; helping them to make sense of how culture, ethnicity, race and mental health interact; and applying cultural and practical adaptations to interventions. Patient or Public Contribution: A Lived Experience Advisory Group (LEAG) of women from ethnic minority groups contributed to the design and conduct of this study. The LEAG had lived experience of perinatal mental health conditions and accessing specialist perinatal teams. The LEAG chose to co‐produce specific aspects of the research they felt fit with their skills and available time throughout five group sessions. These aspects included developing the interview topic guide, a structure for debriefing participants and advising on the social media recruitment strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]