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: Very young children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds often show poorer language development. Whilst there have been attempts to provide early intervention programmes, these sometimes miss the most disadvantaged groups. Aims: This report presents preliminary feasibility and effectiveness data for a novel language intervention designed for parents of toddlers in the United Kingdom. Methods and Procedures: In total, 43 UK families of 2–4‐year‐olds were recruited to the study, half of whom completed an 8‐week course (Tots Talking) focussed on parent interaction, and half of whom acted as wait‐list controls. Results and Outcomes: Results suggest that such programmes are feasible for families with 86% staying in the intervention. In addition, greater changes in underlying communication skills such as joint attention and gesture were evident compared to wait‐list controls. Conclusions and Implications: We conclude that pre‐verbal skills may be more important to measure as initial outcomes than language or vocabulary change in this population. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are at higher risk of communication difficulties and there is a need for community intervention programmes for very young children. What this study adds: This study suggests that such programmes can be feasible and effective, but that very early/basic communicative skills (such as joint attention) may be boosted first rather than language or vocabulary. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Children's centres and other community services could feasibly run short parent facing courses emphasising contingent communication in low SES families and other diverse groups. These may be more successful run with younger preschoolers. Joint attention may be a better focus of intervention before expecting vocabulary or language change. Community health professionals may find this information useful in referring and supporting families in need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early intervention is essential healthcare for stuttering, and the translation of research findings to community settings is a potential roadblock to it. Aims: This study was designed to replicate and extend the Lidcombe Program community translation findings of O'Brian et al. (2013) but with larger participant numbers, incorporating clinicians (speech pathologists/speech anlanguage therapists) and their clients from Australia and England. Methods & Procedures: Participants were 51 clinicians working in public and private clinics across Australia (n = 36) and England (n = 15), and 121 of their young stuttering clients and their families. Outcome measures were percentage of syllables stuttered (%SS), parent severity ratings at 9 months post‐recruitment, number of clinic visits to complete Stage 1 of the Lidcombe Program, and therapist drift. Outcomes & Results: Community clinicians in both countries achieved similar outcomes to those from randomized controlled trials. Therapist drift emerged as an issue with community translation. Speech and language therapists in England attained outcomes 1.0%SS above the speech pathologists in Australia, although their scores were within the range attained in randomized trials. Conclusions & Implications: Community clinicians from Australia and England can attain Lidcombe Program outcome benchmarks established in randomized trials. This finding is reassuring in light of the controlled conditions in clinical trials of the Lidcombe Program compared with its conduct in community practice. The long‐term impact of therapist drift in community clinical practice with the Lidcombe Program has yet to be determined. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: The Lidcombe Program is an efficacious early stuttering intervention. Translation to clinical communities has been studied with one Australian cohort. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: A larger translation cohort is studied, comprising community clinicians and children in Australia and England. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Community clinicians from Australia and England can attain Lidcombe Program outcome benchmarks established in randomized trials. This finding is reassuring in light of the controlled conditions in clinical trials of the Lidcombe Program compared with its conduct in community practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National UK guidance makes recommendations for speech and language therapy staffing levels in critical care and rehabilitation settings. Traumatic spinal cord injury patients often require admission primarily to critical care services within a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit but may not receive similar levels of care. Dysphagia and communication difficulties are recognised features of cervical spinal cord injury; however, little is known about access to speech and language therapy services to provide rehabilitation and improve outcomes. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the workforce and clinical practices of speech and language therapy services in eight spinal injury units and four major trauma centres in England through an online survey. Methods & Procedures: An online survey was created with 26 multiple‐choice questions across seven sub‐sections, with options for free‐text comments. These were sent to a named speech and language therapy contact at each of the specified units. Responses were uploaded into Excel for analyses, which included descriptive statistics and analysis of themes. Outcomes & Results: Responses were received from 92% (11/12) speech and language therapy services invited, which included seven out of eight spinal injury units and all four major trauma centres. No units met national staffing recommendations. Staff in spinal injury units provided an average of 27 h per week input to the unit compared to 80 h in a major trauma centre. Despite caseload variations, speech and language range of therapy involvement and prioritisation process were equivalent. Access to instrumental assessment varied, with less use of Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in spinal injury units despite its clinical value to the spinal cord injury caseload. Conclusions & Implications: Speech and language therapy services delivering post‐acute and long‐term rehabilitation to spinal cord injury patients are limited by their resources and capacity, which restricts the level of therapy delivered to patients. This may have an impact on clinical outcomes for communication and swallowing impairments. Further evidence is needed of the interventions delivered by speech and language therapists and outcomes will be beneficial alongside benchmarking similar services. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: In England, people who sustain a spinal cord injury are admitted to a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit. Dysphagia and communication impairments are recognised as a complication of cervical spinal cord injury and benefit from speech and language therapy intervention. National recommendations exist for staffing levels, expertise and competencies for speech and language therapists working in critical care and rehabilitation units. What this study adds: This study identified variations in the levels of speech and language therapy staffing, seniority, service delivery and access to instrumental assessments for dysphagia between major trauma centres and spinal injury units. None of the services complied with national staffing recommendations. Clinical implications of this study: Speech and language therapy services in spinal injury units are often available part‐time or have limited access to diagnostic tools which limits the range and intensity of rehabilitation input available. This has clinical implications for outcomes for swallowing and communication as well as long‐term consequences for integrating back into community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is recognized that children from areas associated with socioeconomic disadvantage are at an increased risk of delayed language development. However, so far research has focused mainly on young children and there has been little investigation into language development in adolescence. Aims: To investigate the language abilities of adolescents from two different socioeconomic areas. The paper aims to determine if a higher proportion of adolescents from an area of socioeconomic disadvantage have low language scores when compared with adolescents from a relatively advantaged area. Methods & Procedures: Six standardized language assessments were used to measure expressive and receptive language skills across vocabulary, syntax and narrative in two cohorts of 13 and 14 year olds: one cohort attending a school in an area of socioeconomic disadvantage (103 participants) and the other cohort attending a school in an area of relative socioeconomic advantage (48 participants). Outcomes & Results: The cohort from the area of disadvantage performed significantly lower than the assessments' normative mean on all measures of language ability. There were significant differences between the two cohorts on four of the six language measures. More adolescents from the school in the area of socioeconomic disadvantage had standardized assessment scores that suggest hitherto undetected language difficulties. Conclusions & Implications: Results suggest that socioeconomic background is associated with language ability in adolescence as measured by standardized tests. In particular, adolescents from an area of socioeconomic disadvantage were at risk of low vocabulary scores. The advantages and disadvantages of using standardized language assessments are discussed and the implications for clinical and educational practice and for school level policies are highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sentence imitation has been identified as a good indicator of children's language skills, with performance differentiating children with specific language impairment and showing relationships with other language measures. It has a number of advantages over other methods of assessment. The assessment of morphosyntax in children who have severe speech difficulties presents unique challenges which currently available sentence imitation assessments do not address. Aims: This paper presents a new sentence imitation test (The Sentence Imitation Test (SIT-61)) and reports on an investigation which sets out to determine whether this test (1) reveals differences in performance between a group of children diagnosed with specific language impairment and a group of typically developing children (2) reveals distinct profiles of performance amongst children with different speech difficulties, and (3) provides information about morphosyntactic strengths and difficulties. Methods & Procedures: SIT-61 is a finely graded sentence imitation test in which the phonotactic structure, segmental phonology and length of words were kept as developmentally simple as possible. Responses are scored for number of content words, function words and inflections correct. A novel scoring system was devised to credit a child where there was evidence of targeting a morpheme even if it was mispronounced. The test was administered to four groups of children between the ages of 4 and 6 years: 33 children with typical development, 13 children with known expressive morphosyntactic difficulties (specific language impairment), and two groups of 14 children with different types of speech disorder: a group with consistent phonological disorder, who used atypical phonological error patterns consistently; and a group with inconsistent phonological disorder, who produced atypical phonological errors inconsistently. Outcomes & Results: SIT-61 found differences in performance between the group of typically developing participants and the three clinic groups. While the consistent phonological disorder group obtained extremely high scores for content and function words, they obtained lower inflection scores reflective of their speech difficulties. The scores of the specific language impairment and inconsistent phonological disorder groups were comparable for content and function words, but the groups were differentiated through an analysis of their errors. Further analyses confirmed that low scores obtained by some children in the inconsistent phonological disorder group were due to morphosyntactic difficulties and not speech difficulties. Conclusions & Implications: A new sentence imitation test, the SIT-61, is shown to be valuable tool for identifying expressive morphosyntactic difficulties in children. It is informative about the morphosyntactic abilities of children with speech disorders and raises questions as to the nature of their difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]