Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the Lidcombe Program (LP) compared with treatment based on the Demands and Capacities Model (RESTART-DCM) for preschool children who stutter., Method: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis were carried out alongside a Randomized Clinical Trial (the RESTART-study). In total, 199 children in 20 speech clinics participated. Outcome measures included the number needed to treat, based on the percentage of children who did not stutter at 18 months, and Health-related Quality of Life (EQ-VAS and HUI3) at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. Health-related Quality of Life scores were used to calculate quality adjusted life years (V-QALYs for the EQ-VAS and U-QALYs for the HUI3). Direct and indirect costs were measured by cost questionnaires. Missing data were multiply imputed. Percentages of children who did not stutter in both groups were compared by a chi-square test. Between-group differences in mean QALYs and costs, as well as cost effectiveness and cost-utility ratios, were evaluated by applying bootstrapping techniques., Results: After 18 months, health outcomes were slightly better in the LP group, although only the difference in V-QALYs was statistical significant (0.018; 95% CI: 0.008 to 0.027) with a small effect size (Cohen's d=0.17). Mean costs for the LP group were significantly higher compared to the RESTART-DCM group (€3199 versus €3032), again with a small effect size (Cohen's d=0.14). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €3360 for one additional child who did not stutter with the LP, and the estimated cost-utility ratios were €10,413 (extra cost per extra V-QALY) and €18,617 (extra cost per extra U-QALY). The results indicated a high probability that the LP is cost-effective compared to RESTART-DCM treatment given a threshold for willingness-to-pay of €20,000 per QALY., Conclusions: Differences in effects and costs between the LP and RESTART-DCM treatment were small. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were in favor of the LP. The LP is considered a good alternative to RESTART-DCM treatment in Dutch primary care., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Stuttering is a common childhood disorder. There is limited high quality evidence regarding options for best treatment. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of direct treatment with indirect treatment in preschool children who stutter., Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial with an 18 month follow-up, preschool children who stutter who were referred for treatment were randomized to direct treatment (Lidcombe Program; n = 99) or indirect treatment (RESTART-DCM treatment; n = 100). Main inclusion criteria were age 3-6 years, ≥3% syllables stuttered (%SS), and time since onset ≥6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of non-stuttering children at 18 months. Secondary outcomes included stuttering frequency (%SS), stuttering severity ratings by the parents and therapist, severity rating by the child, health-related quality of life, emotional and behavioral problems, and speech attitude., Results: Percentage of non-stuttering children for direct treatment was 76.5% (65/85) versus 71.4% (65/91) for indirect treatment (Odds Ratio (OR), 0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.4, p = .42). At 3 months, children treated by direct treatment showed a greater decline in %SS (significant interaction time x therapy: β = -1.89; t(282.82) = -2.807, p = .005). At 18 months, stuttering frequency was 1.2% (SD 2.1) for direct treatment and 1.5% (SD 2.1) for indirect treatment. Direct treatment had slightly better scores on most other secondary outcome measures, but no differences between treatment approaches were significant., Conclusions: Direct treatment decreased stuttering more quickly during the first three months of treatment. At 18 months, however, clinical outcomes for direct and indirect treatment were comparable. These results imply that at 18 months post treatment onset, both treatments are roughly equal in treating developmental stuttering in ways that surpass expectations of natural recovery. Follow-up data are needed to confirm these findings in the longer term., Trial Registration: isrctn.org ISRCTN24362190.

As stuttering by most persons resolves after a time, an initial wait-and-see policy has been maintained up to now. Two recent important developments in the area of stuttering have occurred: the discovery of gene mutations that appear to be of relevance to the developmental-neurological abnormality and growing evidence that early intervention helps recovery. The mutated genes found are GNPTAB, GNPTG and NAGPA. They are involved in lysosomal decomposition. Published study results show that early treatment using either the Demands and Capacities Model (indirect treatment aimed at the child's surroundings) or the Lidcome Programme (behavioural therapy based on operant conditioning) results in recovery from stuttering in most children. It is now being recommended that 6-12 months are allowed to pass under supervision to see whether the child is leaning toward natural recovery or, if that does not occur, to initiate specific therapy.

Unlabelled: This pilot study compared two treatments for stuttering in preschool-age children. Thirty children were randomly assigned to either a Lidcombe Program (LP) treatment or a Demands and Capacities Model (DCM) treatment. Stuttering frequencies and severity ratings were obtained immediately before and after treatment (12 weeks). The stuttering frequencies and severity ratings significantly decreased for both treatment groups. No differences between groups were found. Parents of children in both groups were cooperative in many respects, and there were no differences between them on scales that measured their satisfaction with the two treatments. The findings suggest that randomized controlled trials of LP versus DCM treatments are feasible, and they underline the need for experimental analyses of the two treatments., Educational Objectives: The reader will be able to: (1) describe the principles and methods of Lidcombe treatment for early stuttering; (2) delineate principles and methods of Demands and Capacities Model treatment; and (3) summarize results of an investigation that compared these programs' relative effects in a pilot study.

Purpose: This study investigated the effectiveness of the stuttering modification intervention Kinder Dürfen Stottern (KIDS) in school-age children who stutter. Method: Seventy-three children who stutter were included in this multicenter, two-group parallel, randomized, wait-list controlled trial with a follow-up of 12 months. Children aged 7–11 years were recruited from 34 centers for speech therapy and randomized to either the immediate-treatment group or the 3 months delayed-treatment group. KIDS was provided by 26 clinicians who followed a treatment manual. Although the primary outcome measure was the impact of stuttering (Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering–School-Age [OASES-S]), the secondary outcomes included objective and subjective data on stuttering severity. Results: At 3 months postrandomization, the mean score changes of the OASESS differed significantly between the experimental (n = 33) and control group (n = 29; p = .026). Furthermore, treatment outcomes up to 12 months were analyzed (n = 59), indicating large effects of time on the OASES-S score (p < .001, partial η² = .324). This was paralleled by significant improvements in parental ratings and objective ratings (stuttering severity, frequency, and physical concomitants). Conclusions: The significant short-term treatment effects in the OASES-S are in line with the (initial) focus of KIDS on cognitive and affective aspects of stuttering. Over 12 months, these changes were maintained and accompanied by behavioral improvements. The results suggest that individual treatment with KIDS is an adequate treatment option for this age group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almost half of the children born very preterm (VP) experience language difficulties at school-age, specifically with more complex language tasks. Narrative retelling is such a task. Therefore, we explored the value of narrative retelling assessment in school-aged children born VP, compared to item-based language assessment. In 63 children born VP and 30 age-matched full-term (FT) controls Renfrew's Bus Story Test and Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals were assessed. The retelling of the Bus Story was transcribed and language complexity and content measures were analyzed with Computerised Language Analysis software. Narrative outcomes of the VP group were worse than that of the FT group. Group differences were significant for the language complexity measures, but not for the language content measures. However, the mean narrative composite score of the VP group was significantly better than their mean item-based language score, while in the FT group the narrative score was worse than the item-based score. Significant positive correlations between narrative and item-based language scores were found only in the VP group. In conclusion, in VP children narrative retelling appears to be less sensitive to detecting academic language problems than item-based language assessment. This might be related to the mediating role of attention in item-based tasks, that appears not to affect more spontaneous language tasks such as retelling. Therefore, in school-aged children born VP we recommend using narrative assessment, in addition to item-based assessments, because it is more related to spontaneous language and less sensitive to attention problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes and beliefs of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) with regard to the Lidcombe Program and Demands and Capacities–based treatment and to examine how these attitudes and beliefs might have changed as a result of participating in the RESTART-study. Method: A focus group meeting with 13 SLPs was organized. The discussion was structured using questions on therapy preference, attitudes about and explicit comparison of both treatments and treatment manuals, and learnings of trial participation. Results: Four main themes were identified. First, a change in attitude toward treatment choice was observed. Second, this change was related to a change in beliefs about the potential of both treatments. Third, aspects of the treatments regarded as success factors were considered. Last, learning outcomes and increased professionalism as a result of participating in the RESTART-trial were discussed. Conclusions: This study showed how attitudes and beliefs of SLPs with regard to the Lidcombe Program and Demands and Capacities–based treatment evolved during a randomized trial. This work increases our understanding of the role of attitudes and beliefs in the uptake and utilization of therapies and demonstrates the importance of collecting qualitative data. Results and recommendations should prove of value in implementing the RESTART-trial results and in training SLPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Perspectives about anxiety-related mental health issues with persistent stuttering. • Perspectives about when to begin early intervention for stuttering. • Perspectives about the issue of early intervention and anxiety. During the 2019 Fourth Croatia Clinical Symposium, speech-language pathologists (SLPs), scholars, and researchers from 29 countries discussed speech-language pathology and psychological practices for the management of early and persistent stuttering. This paper documents what those at the Symposium considered to be the key contemporary clinical issues for early and persistent stuttering. The authors prepared a written record of the discussion of Symposium topics, taking care to ensure that the content of the Symposium was faithfully reproduced in written form. Seven contemporary issues for our field emerged from the Symposium. Effective early intervention is fundamental to proper health care for the disorder. However, as yet, there is no consensus about the timing of early intervention and how it should be managed. Currently, clinical translation is a barrier to evidence-based practice with early stuttering, and proactive strategies were suggested for junior SLPs. Apprehension emerged among some discussants that treatment of early stuttering may cause anxiety. For persistent stuttering, assessment procedures were recommended, as were strategies for dealing with childhood bullying. There was agreement that SLPs are the ideal professionals to provide basic cognitive-behavior therapy for clients with persistent stuttering. Questions were raised about our discipline standards for basic professional preparation programs for stuttering management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]