Search

Purpose: (1) To survey the employed techniques and the reasons/occasions which adults who had recovered from stuttering after age 11 without previous treatment reported as causal to overcome stuttering, (2) to investigate whether the techniques and causal attributions can be reduced to coherent (inherently consistent) dimensions, and (3) whether these dimensions reflect common therapy components., Methods: 124 recovered persons from 8 countries responded by SurveyMonkey or paper-and-pencil to rating scale questions about 49 possible techniques and 15 causal attributions., Results: A Principal Component Analysis of 110 questionnaires identified 6 components (dimensions) for self-assisted techniques (Speech Restructuring; Relaxed/Monitored Speech; Elocution; Stage Performance; Sought Speech Demands; Reassurance; 63.7% variance explained), and 3 components of perceived causal attributions of recovery (Life Change, Attitude Change, Social Support; 58.0% variance explained)., Discussion: Two components for self-assisted techniques (Speech Restructuring; Elocution) reflect treatment methods. Another component (Relaxed/Monitored Speech) consists mainly of items that reflect a common, non-professional understanding of effective management of stuttering. The components of the various perceived reasons for recovery reflect differing implicit theories of causes for recovery from stuttering. These theories are considered susceptible to various biases. This identification of components of reported techniques and of causal attributions is novel compared to previous studies who just list techniques and attributions., Conclusion: The identified dimensions of self-assisted techniques and causal attributions to reduce stuttering as extracted from self-reports of a large, international sample of recovered formerly stuttering adults may guide the application of behavioral stuttering therapies., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Although persistent developmental stuttering is known to affect daily living, just how great the impact is remains unclear. Furthermore, little is known about the underlying mechanisms which lead to a diminished quality of life (QoL). The primary objective of this study is to explore to what extent QoL is impaired in adults who stutter (AWS). In addition, this study aims to identify determinants of QoL in AWS by testing relationships between stuttering severity, coping, functioning and QoL and by testing for differences in variable scores between two AWS subgroups: receiving therapy versus not receiving therapy. A total of 91 AWS filled in several questionnaires to assess their stuttering severity, daily functioning, coping style and QoL. The QoL instruments used were the Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQoL EQ-5D and EQ-VAS. The results indicated that moderate to severe stuttering has a negative impact on overall quality of life; HUI3 derived QoL values varied from .91 (for mild stuttering) to .73 (for severe stuttering). The domains of functioning that were predominantly affected were the individual's speech, emotion, cognition and pain as measured by the HUI3 and daily activities and anxiety/depression as measured by the EQ-5D. AWS in the therapy group rated their stuttering as more severe and recorded more problems on the HUI3 speech domain than AWS in the non-therapy group. The EQ-VAS was the only instrument that showed a significant difference in overall QoL between groups. Finally, it was found that the relationship between stuttering severity and QoL was influenced by the individual's coping style (emotion-oriented and task-oriented). These findings highlight the need for further research into stuttering in relation to QoL, and for a broader perspective on the diagnosis and treatment of stuttering, which would take into consideration quality of life and its determinants., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)