Communicative participation outcomes in individuals with Parkinson's disease receiving standard care speech-language therapy services in community settings

Lee Silverman voice treatment versus NHS speech and language therapy versus control for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease (PD COMM): pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

388 people with Parkinson's disease and dysarthria.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants' needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index.

RESULTS

People who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (-8.0 points (99% confidence interval -13.3 to -2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (-3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (-9.6 points (-14.9 to -4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

LSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382.

The Communicative Participation Item Bank-Gender-Diverse Version: Item Bank Calibration and Short Form

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to calibrate an item set for a new version of the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) specifically for use with gender-diverse clients. This new version contains a new item stem as well as other minor wording changes from the original CPIB in order to be acceptable to gender-diverse respondents.

METHOD

Survey data on 47 candidate items were collected from 434 transgender individuals: 219 assigned female at birth (AFAB) and 215 assigned male at birth (AMAB). Item response theory analyses included evaluation of unidimensionality, local dependence, fit to a graded response model, and differential item functioning (DIF) between AFAB and AMAB respondents.

RESULTS

The original set of 47 items was unidimensional, but 16 items were removed due to local dependence, resulting in a final item bank of 31 items. There was no evidence of DIF between AFAB and AMAB participants. Reliability of the full item bank is good (i.e., > 0.8) between T scores of 20 and 76 and high (i.e., > 0.9) between T scores of 20 and 68. The short form had good reliability (i.e., > 0.8) between T scores of 24 and 64.

CONCLUSIONS

The Communicative Participation Item Bank-Gender-Diverse (CPIB-GD) version provides a new option for person-reported outcome measurement with gender-diverse clients. Clinicians are cautioned to use only the new CPIB-GD with gender-diverse clients, and not the original CPIB due to unacceptable wording in the original version for this population. The original CPIB remains valid and appropriate for the populations for which it was developed.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24993309.