Search

Purpose This study examined language-focused research articles published in 3 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association journals to: (a) determine the proportion that reported the socioeconomic status (SES) of pediatric participants and (b) identify the indicators used to represent SES in these articles. Method Researchers reviewed articles published from 2000–2015 in Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, and the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (language section) that involved pediatric participants and focused on language development, as well as on assessment and intervention for language disorders. Results For the 3 journals combined, 417 out of the total 652 (64%) pediatric language articles reported SES of the participants. Over the 16-year period there was an increase in SES reporting of 31.8% (55.6% to 73.3%). The types of SES indicators used represented education, income, and occupation. Conclusion Although SES reporting for pediatric participants in language-based studies increased over the 16-year period examined, over 1 quarter of studies published in the 3 journals combined still do not report SES. This is a concern. When determining the generalizability of research findings to specific children, it is important for speech-language pathologists to be able to identify the SES background of research participants.

The authors in this article first identify the extent to which research articles published in three American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) journals included participants, age birth to 18 years, from international backgrounds (i.e., residence outside of the United States), and go on to describe associated publication patterns over the past 12 years. These patterns then provide a context for examining variation in the conceptualization of ethnicity on an international scale. Further, the authors examine terminology and categories used by 11 countries where research participants resided. Each country uses a unique classification system. Thus, it can be expected that descriptions of the ethnic characteristics of international participants involved in research published in ASHA journal articles will widely vary.

BACKGROUND: Classic galactosemia is an autosomal recessive disorder due to galactose-1-phosphate uridyltransferase (GALT) deficiency. Newborn screening and early treatment do not completely prevent tremor, speech deficits, and diminished IQ in both sexes and premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) in women. Data on how individuals with galactosemia fare as adults will improve our ability to predict disease progression.METHODS: Thirty-three adults (mean age = 32.6 ± 11.7 years; range = 18-59) with classic galactosemia, confirmed by genotype and undetectable GALT enzyme activity, were evaluated. Analyses assessed associations among age, genotype, clinical features and laboratory measures.RESULTS: The sample included 17 men and 16 women. Subjects exhibited cataracts (21%), low bone density (24%), tremor (46%), ataxia (15%), dysarthria (24%), and apraxia of speech (9%). Subjects reported depression (39%) and anxiety (67%). Mean full scale IQ was 88 ± 20, (range = 55-122). All subjects followed a dairy-free diet and 75-80% reported low intake of calcium and vitamin D. Mean height, weight and body mass were within established norms. All female subjects had been diagnosed with POI. One woman and two men had had children. Logistic regression analyses revealed no associations between age, genotype or gender with IQ, tremor, ataxia, dysarthria, apraxia of speech or anxiety. Each 10- year increment of age was associated with a twofold increase in odds of depression.CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these data do not support the hypothesis that galactosemia is a progressive neurodegenerative disease. However, greater attention to depression, anxiety, and social relationships may relieve the impact of this disorder in adults.

Courses in anatomy have traditionally relied on lectures and cadaver dissection laboratories. In speech and hearing sciences, there tends to be less access to cadavers than in medical schools and other allied health professions. It is more typical to use anatomical models, diagrams and lecture slides. Regardless of the resources available, anatomy is a subject that lends itself to hands-on learning. This article briefly reviews teaching methods and describes a variety of innovative activities to enhance learning of anatomical concepts and clinical relevance of anatomy for speech production. Teaching strategies and activities were developed to capitalize on students' multimodal learning preferences as revealed by responses to a survey administered to 49 undergraduates in the beginning of an anatomy of speech production course. At the end of the semester, students completed a second survey. A five-point Likert scale was used to assess the usefulness of each activity as a learning tool or level of clinical relevance and the level of enjoyability. The responses were overwhelmingly positive with level of usefulness and level of clinical relevance rated higher on average than the level of enjoyment.

A surge of research has recently been published on the importance of patient-centered communication (P-CC). However, patients with communication disorders are rarely considered in these discussions. Health care workers in long-term care facilities (L-TCFs) and rehabilitation centers were surveyed in order to: (1) assess the level of P-CC used with people with communication disorders versus those without communication disorders; (2) identify the tools and strategies currently used by health care providers in long-term care facilities and rehabilitation centers to enhance P-CC with people with communication disorders; (3) assess the perceived level of effectiveness of these tools and strategies; and (4) identify the tools desired by health care providers in these settings. The results regarding P-CC levels were fairly consistent across settings. Health care providers reported that they achieve slightly higher P-CC with patients without communication disorders than with those with communication disorders. Respondents in both settings used similar tools and strategies, but the reported level of effectiveness varied greatly between the two settings, with rehabilitation centers indicating better success than L-TCFs. Interestingly, rehabilitation center respondents were more interested in obtaining additional tools than were L-TCF respondents, but the types of tools desired were similar. Keywords: communication disorders; communication tools; communication strategies; health care Communication disorders, which may impede patientcentered communication (P-CC), are common among clients served in both long-term care facilities (L-TCF) and rehabilitation centers. In long-term care facilities, communication barriers are apt to include hearing loss, dementia, and age-related communication disorders associated with etiologies such as a history of stroke and Parkinson's disease. Contrastingly, rehabilitation centers tend to serve patients with newly acquired communication disorders due to stroke, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injuries. In both of these settings, challenges in communication may be caused by a number of resulting disorders including aphasia, apraxia, dysarthria, reading disability, and cognitive dysfunction. Although these disorders may be extensive and highly debilitating, "few health care workers, particularly auxiliary health care staff, have received formal training regarding the identification, treatment and needs of patients who have communication disorders" (Odulana, Sarvela, & Sarvela, 1989, p. 68).This article reviews the literature on P-CC in long-term care facilities (L-TCFs) and rehabilitation centers, and reports findings from a study that had the following fourfold purpose: 1. To assess the level of P-CC used with people with communication disorders versus those without communication disorders. 2. To identify the tools and strategies currently used by health care providers in long-term care facilities and rehabilitation centers to enhance P-CC with people with communication disorders. 3. To assess the perceived level of effectiveness of these tools and strategies. 4. To identify the tools desired by health care providers in these settings. LITERATURE REVIEW P-CC is defined as (1) obtaining the patient's point of view, (2) involving the patient in a discussion of treatment alternatives, (3) mutually deciding the course of treatment, and (4) establishing a trusting relationship over time (Nagy, 2001). It is essential to achieve patient-centered care, a medical model "that engages the patient in decision-making and self-care" (Silow-Carroll, Alteras, & Stepnick, 2006, p. 7). Without good communication, health care providers can be ignorant of patient needs and expectations, which can lead patients to misunderstand the rights and choices available (Kopp, 2001) and can lead to poor health outcomes (Roter, 1989). The literature is replete with research on P-CC (Roter, 1989; Stewart et al. …