Search

Background: At the beginning of the 21st century, international adoptions of children with cleft lip and/or palate increased dramatically in Sweden. Many children arrived partially or totally unoperated, despite being at an age when palatoplasty has usually been performed. To date, the speech development of internationally adopted (IA) children has been described up to age 7-8 years, but later development remains unstudied. Aims: To investigate speech development between ages 5 and 10 years in children born with cleft lip and palate (CLP) adopted from China and to compare them with non-adopted (NA) children with CLP. A secondary aim was to compare the frequencies of secondary palatal surgery and number of visits to a speech and language pathologist (SLP) between the groups. Methods & Procedures: In a longitudinal study, 23 IA children from China were included and matched with 23 NA children born in Sweden. Experienced SLPs blindly reassessed audio recordings from routine follow-ups at ages 5 and 10 years. Velopharyngeal function (VPF) was assessed with the composite score for velopharyngeal competence (VPC-Sum) for single words and rated on a three-point scale (VPC-Rate) in sentence repetition. Target sounds in words and sentences were phonetically transcribed. Per cent correct consonants (PCC) were calculated at word and sentence levels. For in-depth analyses, articulation errors were divided into cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), developmental speech characteristics (DSCs) and s-errors. Information on secondary palatal surgery and number of visits to an SLP was collected. Outcomes & Results: VPF differed significantly between the groups at both ages when assessed with VPC-Sum, but not with VPC-Rate. Regardless of the method for assessing VPF, a similar proportion in both groups had incompetent VPF but fewer IA than NA children had competent VPF at both ages. IA children had lower PCC at both ages at both word and sentence levels. More IA children had CSCs, DSCs and s-errors at age 5 years, and CSCs and s-errors at age 10. The development of PCC was significant in both groups between ages 5 and 10 years. The proportion of children receiving secondary palatal surgery did not differ significantly between the groups, nor did number of SLP visits. Conclusions & Implications: CSCs were more persistent in IA children than in NA children at age 10 years. Interventions should target both cleft and DSCs, be comprehensive and continue past the pre-school years.

Background: To enhance communicative ability and thereby the possibility of increased participation of persons with aphasia, the use of communication strategies has been proposed. However, little is known about how persons with aphasia experience having conversations and how they perceive their own and their conversation partner's use of communication strategies. Aims: To explore how people with aphasia experience having conversations, how they handle communication difficulties, and how they perceive their own and their communication partners' use of communication strategies. Methods & Procedures: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four women and seven men with chronic aphasia (n = 11). Interviews were video-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results: Informants appreciated having conversations despite the fact that they perceived their aphasia as a serious hindrance. Different factors related to the informants, the conversation partners, the conversation itself and the physical environment were perceived to impact on conversations. The importance of the communication partners' knowledge and understanding of aphasia and their use of supporting conversation strategies were acknowledged by the informants. The informants' views on using communication aid devices or strategies varied considerably. Four themes that characterized the informants' narratives were: loss and frustration, fear and uncertainty, shared responsibility based on knowledge, and longing for the past or moving forward. Conclusions & Implications: The informants longed to regain their former language ability and role as an active participant in society. To enhance participation of persons with aphasia, it is suggested that communication partner training should be an important and integral part of aphasia rehabilitation. Important elements of such training are reflecting on communication behaviours, training in real-life situations, and acknowledging each individual's special needs and preferences. To deal with the consequences of aphasia, counselling and psychological support may be needed. (Contains 4 tables.)

Background: For healthcare professionals, decision-makers and taxpayers, clinical guidelines and recommendations are tools for implementing interventions supported by research evidence. To ensure efficient, safe, and equal care for people with aphasia (PWA) in Sweden, it is vital that speech and language pathologists (SLPs) can work in accordance with evidence-based practice. Aim: To investigate to which degree the Best practice recommendations for aphasia (BPRA) are already well aligned with current practice in the management of aphasia and to what extent they would require adjustment to fit the Swedish care contexts. Methods and procedures: The BPRA were translated from English to Swedish according to steps 1 and 2 in the translation method recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). A webbased questionnaire was used for data collection. All healthcare regions in Sweden were represented, and the study included a total of 109 SLPs. The participants' perceived knowledge and application of the recommendations and whether the recommendations can serve as a basis for national clinical guidelines were summarized quantitatively. The participants' comments on the applicability of the BPRA were analyzed with qualitative content analysis according to an established model. Outcomes and results: Only a few participants indicated they had good knowledge of the BPRA. The responses additionally showed that the application of the BPRA varied between the participants and across clinical settings. Lacking SLP resources was stated to be the main perceived barrier for complying with the recommendations. The participants also stated that the BPRA requires adjustment to provide a partial basis for national clinical guidelines for aphasia and the need for national clinical guidelines to be adjusted to prevalent SLP resources. Conclusions: There are challenges in following up on some of the interventions that, according to both multinational recommendations and Swedish guidelines, should be given priority in the care of PWA. The barriers that are stated to complicate Swedish SLPs' compliance with some of the multinational recommendations are similar to the barriers posed by SLPs in other national studies on the uptake of aphasia rehabilitation recommendations. In Sweden, SLPs experience a lack of resources of various kinds to be able to fully comply with the BPRA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]