Clinical and research perspectives on nonspeech oral motor treatments and evidence-based practice

What Is Clinical Evidence in Speech-Language Pathology? A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Two disparate models drive American speech-language pathologists' views of evidence-based practice (EBP): the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (2004a, 2004b) and Dollaghan's (2007). These models discuss evidence derived from clinical practice but differ in the terms used, the definitions, and discussions of its role. These concepts, which we unify as clinical evidence, are an important part of EBP but lack consistent terminology and clear definitions in the literature. Our objective was to identify how clinical evidence is described in the field.

METHOD

We conducted a scoping review to identify terms ascribed to clinical evidence and their descriptions. We searched the peer-reviewed, accessible, speech-language pathology intervention literature from 2005 to 2020. We extracted the terms and descriptions, from which three types of clinical evidence arose. We then used an open-coding framework to categorize positive and negative descriptions of clinical expertise and summarize the role of clinical evidence in decision making.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight articles included a description of clinical evidence. Across publications, a single term was used to describe disparate concepts, and the same concept was given different terms, yet the concepts that authors described clustered into three categories: clinical opinion, clinical expertise, and practice-based evidence, with each described as distinct from research evidence, and separate from the process of clinical decision making. Clinical opinion and clinical expertise were intrinsic to the clinician. Clinical opinion was insufficient and biased, whereas clinical expertise was a positive multidimensional construct. Practice-based evidence was extrinsic to the clinician-the local clinical data that clinicians generated. Good clinical decisions integrated multiple sources of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

These results outline a shared language for SLPs to discuss their clinical evidence with researchers, families, allied professionals, and each other. Clarification of the terminology, associated definitions, and the contributions of clinical evidence to good clinical decision-making informs EBP models in speech-language pathology.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21498546.

A survey of the clinical management of childhood apraxia of speech in the United States and Canada

PURPOSE

Limited information is available about the current practices of generalist speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in relation to their management of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). This study was designed to investigate four primary questions separately for the US and Canada; 1. What treatment approaches are used by SLP clinicians to treat CAS? 2. What treatment format and intensity are used to deliver CAS treatment? 3. What are the attitudes and perspectives of SLPs to evidence-based practice (EBP) as it pertains to CAS treatment? and 4. What are the perceived barriers to the implementation of EBP in CAS treatment?

METHOD

An online questionnaire was used to investigate the four primary research questions. The questionnaire was distributed online through social media, some state-based associations and through forums affiliated with national speech-language-hearing associations.

RESULTS

Most survey respondents reported frequently using an eclectic approach to treat CAS (US 85%; Canada 89%). Although no intervention emerged as the most preferred primary treatment for CAS, US-based clinicians more commonly reported using the Kaufman Speech to Language Protocol (K-SLP) (33%) and Dynamic, Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC) (28%); while clinicians in Canada used PROMPT ® (31%). SLPs demonstrated a positive attitude towards EBP however, they identified a range of perceived barriers that impacted their implementation of EBP.

CONCLUSION

SLPs in the US and Canada frequently used an eclectic approach to treat CAS which is consistent with previous findings both in the CAS literature and the wider speech disorders literature. The more commonly used primary interventions were the K-SLP and DTTC (US); and PROMPT ® (Canada), with one of the strongest factors that influenced clinicians' choice of intervention being familiarity with the treatment approach. Face to face therapy was preferred by clinicians across both countries, with clinicians in the US providing therapy between 2-5 times per week, while those in Canada delivered therapy up to once per week. Clinicians identified a number of barriers to implementing evidence-based practice, among which, being time poor was most commonly selected across clinicians in both the US and Canada.

The Use of Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercises in the Treatment of Children With Cleft Palate: A Re-Examination of Available Evidence

Purpose The purpose of this tutorial is to re-examine the current literature on nonspeech oral motor exercise (NSOME) in general and its use in the treatment of children with cleft palate specifically and provide a best practice recommendation. Method The Population Intervention Comparison Outcome process was used to investigate the clinical question. This systematic framework identifies the clinical population, evaluates the intervention(s) applied to the population, assesses the results of interventions, and delineates the outcome. A literature search, which examined developmental research, applied clinical research, and systematic treatment reviews, was conducted for this purpose. Results The literature reviewed herein suggests that, on a number of different levels, the implementation of NSOMEs does not result in positive communication outcomes for children with cleft palate who present with velopharyngeal dysfunction or compensatory speech errors. Conclusion Based on the current review, there is no empirical support for the use of NSOME as a direct or adjunct treatment for velopharyngeal dysfunction or compensatory speech errors. Appropriate treatments for these communication disorders include surgical, dental, and speech-based interventions.

Participant reported outcomes of a community of practice about social participation for speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation

Purpose: Because of their communication difficulties, persons with aphasia are at risk of not fully participating in significant activities after rehabilitation. Speech-language pathologists can contribute to support optimal social participation in rehabilitation. A community of practice (CoP) was designed to provide motivated clinicians with opportunities to acquire knowledge and reflect on social participation within aphasia rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of this CoP according to the perspectives of speech-language pathologist participants.Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted 4 to 10 weeks after the end of the CoP with 13 speech-language pathologist participants. Analyses were guided by grounded theory.Results: Participants perceived that the CoP experience contributed to a better alignment of their practice with the ideal end purpose of optimizing social participation. A sense of community emerged among CoP members, who collectively reflected on their practice. Participants stated feeling equipped to adopt new practices, adopting new practices for optimizing social participation, and/or advocating for better services for persons with aphasia. They felt increased confidence, motivation, well-being, and/or energy towards their practice.Conclusions: CoPs can help speech-language pathologists to more confidently practice with the goal of optimizing the social participation of persons with aphasia.Implications for rehabilitationSpeech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation, as a result of being involved in a community of practice (CoP) about social participation, may offer more evidence-based services aiming at optimizing the social participation of persons with aphasia.Markers of a successful CoP may include participants' increased feelings of confidence, motivation, well-being, and/or energy towards their practice.CoPs can be used for continuing education purposes and support the development of clinical expertise among professionals, such as speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation.

A Survey of Clinicians With Specialization in Childhood Apraxia of Speech

Purpose Little is known about how clinicians develop expertise in childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), a rare speech disorder with heterogeneous presentation. The purpose of this survey study was to examine the beliefs and practices of clinicians specializing in CAS. Method Speech-language pathologists who self-identify as having expertise in CAS (n = 165) completed an online survey regarding influences on clinical practice and beliefs about CAS. Practice patterns and perspectives regarding CAS were analyzed for respondents who self-identify as having expertise in CAS, across 4 experience bands (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 15+ years). Results A majority of the respondents to this survey provide treatment to preschool-age children with CAS. Respondents report features used in differential diagnosis aligned with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (2007) technical report, with inconsistency as a key feature. Results suggest that continuing education courses are highly influential in the perceived development of expertise and perspectives regarding CAS. Respondents expressed uncertainty about comorbidity of CAS with other communication disorders. Overall, beliefs and practices are relatively uniform across levels of clinical experience. Conclusions Practices and perspectives of clinicians who self-identify as having expertise with CAS are influenced by factors noted in previous literature. Results of this survey highlight the need for research on the development of expertise in the clinical management of CAS, updated consensus statements that reflect advances in current research, clarification regarding comorbidity of CAS with other communication disorders, and evaluation of continuing education opportunities. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9755459.

Tyranny of the randomised clinical trial

Researchers and clinicians often disagree about what it means to provide the best possible care. This paper's purpose is to propose ways of resolving the disagreements. The first is to have both groups re-examine the three equal components of evidence-based practice, a re-examination that begins with rejection of the randomised clinical trial's tyranny. The second is for researchers to design rehabilitation research based on a biopsychosocial rather than a biomedical model. The third is for both groups to redefine translational research so that it means both translation from the laboratory to the clinic and from the clinic to the laboratory. The fourth is to advocate for a science of dissemination that is as robust as rehabilitation's present science of discovery. Most examples are drawn from the literature on acquired neurologic speech and language disorders.

The use of non-speech oral-motor exercises among Indian speech-language pathologists to treat speech disorders: An online survey

Objective

Previous surveys in the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), and Canada have indicated that most of the speech-language pathologists (SLPs) tend to use non-speech oral-motor exercises (NSOMEs) on a regular basis to treat speech disorders. At present, there is considerable debate regarding the clinical effectiveness of NSOMEs. The current study aimed to investigate the pattern and extent of usage of NSOMEs among Indian SLPs.

Method

An online survey intended to elicit information regarding the use of NSOMEs was sent to 505 members of the Indian Speech and Hearing Association. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section solicited demographic information, the second and third sections solicited information from participants who did and did not prefer to use NSOMEs, respectively. Descriptive statistics were employed to analyse the responses that were clinically relevant.

Results

A total of 127 participants responded to the survey. Ninety-one percent of the participants who responded to the survey indicated that they used NSOMEs.

Conclusion

The results suggested that the percentage of SLPs preferring to use NSOMEs is similar to the findings of surveys conducted in the USA, the UK, and Canada. The Indian SLPs continue to use NSOMEs based on a multitude of beliefs. It is important for SLPs to incorporate the principles of evidence-based practice while using NSOMEs to provide high quality clinical care.