Search

Background: Spoken discourse impairments post-traumatic brain injury (TBI) are well-documented and heterogeneous in nature. These impairments have chronic implications for adults in terms of employment, socializing and community involvement. Intervention delivered by a speech-language pathologist (SLP) is recommended for adults with discourse impairments post-TBI, with an emphasis on context-sensitive treatment. The developing evidence base indicates a wide array of treatment components for SLPs to evaluate and implement within their clinical practice. However, there is limited insight into how SLPs are currently treating discourse impairments and the rationales informing clinical practice. Aims: To explore the under-researched area of clinical practice for spoken discourse interventions with adults post-TBI, including treatment components and clinician rationales, and to contribute towards a shared knowledge base. Methods & Procedures: Participants were recruited via purposeful sampling strategies. Six SLPs participated from Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom. Interviews were manually transcribed, coded and analysed via a qualitative content analysis approach. Outcomes & Results: Participants described discourse treatment practices across various settings and TBI recovery stages. Results indicated that SLPs used numerous treatment activities, resources and outcome measures. Intervention approaches primarily targeted social communication skills, strategy development/utilization and insight-building. Clinical practice conformed to available guidelines where possible, reflected best practice and incorporated components of the research literature. Participants reported using individualized treatment activities aimed at addressing client-specific factors and rationales prioritized tailored, context-sensitive and goal-directed treatment. Conclusions & Implications: This study provided insight into a previously under-researched area. It highlighted a wide range of treatment activities and factors informing current SLPs' treatment of spoken discourse impairment post-TBI. Overall, clinical practice and rationales discussed in this study were aligned with best practice and emphasized a contextualized, individualized approach to discourse treatment across service settings and stages of recovery. Participants identified areas requiring further support, including access to training, resources and research, and the challenge of finding suitable outcome measures. Further investigation into discourse management post-TBI, from initial assessment to outcome measurement, may help inform clinical decision-making and the transfer of research to practice.

The purpose of this case study was to explore the communication needs of a child with deafness and cerebral palsy (DCP) and how these needs can be supported by interventions targeting the use of communication approaches and strategies. One semi-structured interview with the child's parents and five observations of the child in different contexts before and after the interventions took place. A rating scale "Checklist of Identified Needs", deriving from the observation data, the "Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Development Matters" assessment and a British Sign Language (BSL) receptive and expressive skills assessment were used to explore the child's communication strategies before and after the intervention. The child completed two parallel school-based interventions lasting seven weeks, (1) one delivered daily which focused on BSL usage and Augmentative Alternative Communication (AAC) and (2) one targeting communication strategies such as initiating and maintaining eye contact using a weekly "social story" and play-based sessions. Our results indicated that the combined use of sign and AAC technology to target key areas of communication use and a targeted approach using social stories to support communication strategies can be effective in enhancing communication skills of children with DCP. Implications for practice are discussed.

Language and communication improvement approaches designed by SLT services for delivery by early years practitioners can be effective in principle, but what helps or hinders initial and ongoing success? In this implementation study, we investigated the experiences of 10 practitioners who became Language Leads (LLs) and delivered the Language Lead Approach (LLA) in early years settings. Our participants were highly invested in the LLA and praised its benefits for children and for their emotional and professional development. However, within their settings, practitioners found staff attitudes and engagement and resource limitations were significant barriers to implementation. Managerial support was perceived as less important for implementation than anticipated from previous literature. LLs often felt frustration at time and staffing constraints and felt personally responsible when implementation was not complete. LLs experienced confusion in their first year delivering the LLA, needing more guidance and support from speech and language therapists (SLTs). Practical implications are explored to help services design and improve the implementation, and therefore effectiveness, of similar strategies.

Background: Communication strategy training (CST) is a recognized part of UK speech and language therapists' (SLTs) role when working with a person with aphasia. Multiple CST interventions have been published but, to date, there are no published studies exploring clinical practice in this area. Aims: To investigate UK SLTs' current CST practices. Methods & Procedures: Thirty-seven UK SLTs completed an online questionnaire, eight of whom attended a follow-up focus group. A clinical consistency scale was applied to the questionnaire data and tasks that were most consistently used were explored in the focus group and analyzed using a primarily deductive thematic data analysis approach. Outcomes & Results: Three key CST findings arose: (1) the rarity with which SLTs focus equally and explicitly on both communication partners' strategies; (2) SLTs' differing understandings of CST terminologies and concepts and underuse of formal assessment; and (3) the absence of video feedback. Conclusion & Implications: This study's survey findings suggest that conversation partners not only receive half the amount of CST given to people with aphasia but also play a more passive learning role when they are present. This is an interesting point to consider when the current evidence base contains stronger evidence for the effectiveness of conversation partner CST over other CST approaches, it being described as an effective method that may be maintained over time.

Health literacy research and scholarship has largely overlooked the experiences of people with intellectual disabilities (ID), though growing concern about the health inequalities they face has increasingly given rise to health promotion interventions for this group. However, these interventions reference a rather limited vision of health literacy and largely fail to offer people with ID opportunities to develop capabilities to interact with health information in a more critical manner or to develop their understandings of how the wider social context impacts on their own experiences of health and health care. In this paper I offer some explanations for why people with ID have been excluded from the critical health literacy field. I suggest ways that a critical health literacy frame can advance understandings of (1) what literacy in general means for people with ID; (2) what it means for them to take part in critical health literacy practices, and (3) the nature of health texts--what they are and what they do for people with ID. I conclude with remarks about what involvement in critical health literacy initiatives might offer people with ID and also what a consideration of the experiences of people with ID can offer critical health literacy theorizing and research.

Infant–parent interaction forms the foundation for language learning. For the majority of deaf infants, hearing loss can impact access to, and the quality of communicative interactions, placing language development at risk. Support for families to meet the challenges faced during interaction is highly variable in the United Kingdom. In a step towards more standardized but tailorable family support, we co-produced an instructional, video-based intervention, testing for feasibility in terms of behavior change in seven communicative strategies and acceptability with 9 parents, forming study 1. Parents increased their use of the majority of behaviors and found content and delivery acceptable. However, further development was required to: (a) support use of semantically contingent talk and attention getting strategies to elicit infant attention, and (b) ensure the information was provided in a bite-size format that could be tailored to individual families. In study 2, the intervention was refined based on findings from study 1 and assessed for acceptability with 9 parents and 17 professionals, who reported similar high acceptability scores. Final refinements and modifications could be addressed in future interventions. The current studies provide a positive early step towards a standardized intervention to support communication that could be used in routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Communication strategy training (CST) is a recognized part of UK speech and language therapists' (SLTs) role when working with a person with aphasia. Multiple CST interventions have been published but, to date, there are no published studies exploring clinical practice in this area. Aims To investigate UK SLTs' current CST practices. Methods & Procedures Thirty-seven UK SLTs completed an online questionnaire, eight of whom attended a follow-up focus group. A clinical consistency scale was applied to the questionnaire data and tasks that were most consistently used were explored in the focus group and analyzed using a primarily deductive thematic data analysis approach. Outcomes & Results Three key CST findings arose: (1) the rarity with which SLTs focus equally and explicitly on both communication partners' strategies; (2) SLTs' differing understandings of CST terminologies and concepts and underuse of formal assessment; and (3) the absence of video feedback. Conclusion & Implications This study's survey findings suggest that conversation partners not only receive half the amount of CST given to people with aphasia but also play a more passive learning role when they are present. This is an interesting point to consider when the current evidence base contains stronger evidence for the effectiveness of conversation partner CST over other CST approaches, it being described as an effective method that may be maintained over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]