Application of systematic reviews in speech-and-language therapy

Improving communication access in psychoeducational interventions for people with complex communication needs: a scoping review and stakeholder consultation

PURPOSE

Psychoeducational interventions are commonly used to improve mental health among the general population; however, their application among people with complex communication needs is under explored. This scoping review aims to identify the psychoeducational interventions utilised with people with complex communication needs, any adaptations to improve communication access, and outcomes for this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley guidelines and included stakeholder consultations. A systematic search of the literature was conducted. Stakeholder consultations were conducted via semi-structured interviews with informants from three populations: people with complex communication needs, everyday communication partners and mental health workers.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2112 articles. Twenty-four articles were retained for data extraction. Numerical analysis provided an overview of the existing literature. Thematic analysis highlighted the range of communication access strategies applied within psychoeducational interventions. Common aims and outcomes of interventions occurred across three interrelated themes: education, symptom reduction, and improved coping and wellbeing. Stakeholder consultations enabled contextualisation of literature.

CONCLUSIONS

People with complex communication needs may benefit from psychoeducational interventions when effective, personalised communication access strategies are employed. Future research should include lived-experience perspectives to ensure the relevance of communication access strategies in mental health support.Implications for rehabilitationThis scoping review adds to the evidence base supporting equitable access to mental health support for people with complex communication needs.A range of specific strategies are presented for mental health workers to consider when working with people with complex communication needs.Positive behaviour support (PBS) practitioners must be equipped to address the psychoeducational and mental health support requirements of people with complex communication needs.

A Systematic Review of Interventions for Late Talkers: Intervention Approaches, Elements, and Vocabulary Outcomes

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to examine the empirical evidence on interventions for late talkers between 18 and 42 months according to type of intervention approach (direct, indirect, and hybrid), reporting of intervention elements, and outcomes for receptive and expressive vocabulary.

METHOD

This review was registered with PROSPERO and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Eleven databases were systematically searched with 34 intervention studies involving 1,207 participants meeting criteria. Studies were categorized as using a direct, indirect, or hybrid intervention approach, then examined according to intervention elements, vocabulary outcomes, as well as reported tools and type of score used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Across 34 studies, nine used a direct intervention approach, 10 an indirect intervention approach, and 14 a hybrid intervention approach. One study compared direct and hybrid intervention approaches. All indirect and hybrid approaches included parent training; direct approaches did not. The type and degree of reporting of other intervention elements, as well as the tools and type of score used to evaluate outcomes, varied within and across approaches. Overall, improvements in expressive vocabulary were reported by 93% of studies, with variable results for the nine studies reporting receptive vocabulary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The direct, indirect, and hybrid intervention approaches were typified by specific intervention elements; however, there was diversity in how other elements comprising the approaches were arranged. When making decisions about which intervention approach to use, clinicians need to be mindful of the differences among approaches, how they discuss those differences with parents, and which approaches and elements might be best suited to individual children and their families.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21291405.

Applying Appraisal Tools in Aphasia Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial

PURPOSE

A systematic review (SR) represents a rigorous process of identifying and summarizing current research to answer specific clinical questions. Not all SRs present high-quality information, because they do not adhere to established standards of conduct or reporting. This tutorial aims to (a) describe two tools developed in epidemiology for reporting (PRISMA 2020; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and appraising (AMSTAR 2; A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) SRs and (b) exemplify the use of AMSTAR 2. First, we describe the intents of PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 and compare the items on each checklist. Next, we apply the AMSTAR 2 list of domains to critically appraise methodological quality in two randomly selected SRs, which describe aphasia treatment. Appraisal results are reported, including the AMSTAR 2 ratings for overall confidence in the results of each review. For each SR, the overall rating was critically low, indicating that within the seven critical domains of AMSTAR 2, the SR had more than one critical weakness.

CONCLUSIONS

While PRISMA 2020 is a tool to guide preparation of SRs, to examine SR quality, the AMSTAR 2 is the tool of choice. Applied to two current aphasia treatment SRs, the AMSTAR 2 demonstrates that although both SRs were thorough, thoughtful summaries of a body of aphasia treatment literature, they did not achieve high ratings for methodological quality. Clinicians reading SRs are advised to familiarize themselves with quality assessment tools to assure that an SR meets expected criteria to document internal and external validity of the SR process, so resulting findings can be confidently applied for patients with aphasia.

Efficacy, model of delivery, intensity and targets of pragmatic interventions for children with developmental language disorder: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is widely acknowledged that children with developmental language disorder (DLD) predominantly have difficulties in the areas of grammar and vocabulary, with preserved pragmatic skills. Consequently, few studies focus on the pragmatic skills of children with DLD, and there is a distinct lack of studies examining the effectiveness of pragmatic interventions.

AIMS

To carry out a systematic review of the literature on pragmatic interventions for children with DLD.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (ID = CRD42017067239). A systematic search in seven databases yielded 1031 papers, of which 11 met our inclusion criteria. The included papers focused on interventions for children with DLD (mean = 3-18 years), enhancing oral language pragmatic skills, published between January 2006 and May 2020, and were based on a group-study design such as randomized control trial or pre-post-testing. Study participants were monolingual speakers. The quality of papers was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

There was a high degree of variability between the included intervention studies, especially regarding intensity, intervention targets and outcomes. The evidence suggested that pragmatic intervention is feasible for all models of delivery (individual, small and large group) and that interventions for pragmatic language are mostly focused on encouragement of conversation and narrative skills observed through parent-child interaction or shared book-reading activities.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

This study highlights the importance of promoting and explicitly teaching pragmatic skills to children with DLD in structured interventions. A narrative synthesis of the included studies revealed that in addition to direct intervention, indirect intervention can also contribute to improving oral pragmatic skills of children with DLD.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject? An increasing number of studies have shown that difficulties in acquiring pragmatic language is not only present in children with autism. What this study adds to existing knowledge? Interventions for pragmatic language in children with DLD are mostly focused on encouragement of conversation and narrative skills, very often through parent-child interaction or shared book-reading activities. Interventions that target language pragmatic are feasible for all models of delivery (individual, small and large group). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The efficacy of the existing studies varies, and it is difficult to give recommendations regarding the intensity and duration of the specific intervention. In addition to offering pragmatic intervention directly from a specialist, pragmatic interventions can also be carried out indirectly if the intervention is under the continuous supervision of a specialist.

A systematic review and classification of interventions for speech-sound disorder in preschool children

BACKGROUND

Multiple interventions have been developed to address speech sound disorder (SSD) in children. Many of these have been evaluated but the evidence for these has not been considered within a model which categorizes types of intervention. The opportunity to carry out a systematic review of interventions for SSD arose as part of a larger scale study of interventions for primary speech and language impairment in preschool children.

AIMS

To review systematically the evidence for interventions for SSD in preschool children and to categorize them within a classification of interventions for SSD.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Relevant search terms were used to identify intervention studies published up to 2012, with the following inclusion criteria: participants were aged between 2 years and 5 years, 11 months; they exhibited speech, language and communication needs; and a primary outcome measure of speech was used. Studies that met inclusion criteria were quality appraised using the single case experimental design (SCED) or PEDro-P, depending on their methodology. Those judged to be high quality were classified according to the primary focus of intervention.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

The final review included 26 studies. Case series was the most common research design. Categorization to the classification system for interventions showed that cognitive-linguistic and production approaches to intervention were the most frequently reported. The highest graded evidence was for three studies within the auditory-perceptual and integrated categories.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

The evidence for intervention for preschool children with SSD is focused on seven out of 11 subcategories of interventions. Although all the studies included in the review were good quality as defined by quality appraisal checklists, they mostly represented lower-graded evidence. Higher-graded studies are needed to understand clearly the strength of evidence for different interventions.

A systematic scoping review of speech and language therapists' public health practice for early language development

BACKGROUND

There have been calls for speech and language therapists (SLTs) to work within a public-health framework to support language development. Innovative practice is reported, but the range of services remains unknown. Furthermore, the potential impact of public health practice in speech and language therapy on early child development is also currently unknown. A new method in SLT research, systematic scoping reviews enable greater breadth of focus than traditional systematic reviews when identifying innovative practice.

AIM

To report scope and critically appraise evidence of family-focused health-promotion practice for early language development in this area.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Using the Cochrane Public Health Group scoping review framework, data from reports of health-promotion practice with families of children aged 0-3 years were extracted and critically appraised on service delivery, information, reach and evaluation.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

Group-based service delivery was the most popular form of service delivery. There were limited reports on the information given in services and on their reach. Questionnaires were the most popular reported evaluation method. Quality of evaluations was poor due to lack of replicability and experimental control in the studies reported.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

This method of systematic review has highlighted the scope of health-promotion practice in speech and language therapy and also demonstrated the lack of evidence for its effectiveness on child language development. It is argued that systematic scoping reviews are valuable for scoping innovative practice in areas where either there is a lack of robust evidence or there is a high level of heterogeneity in practice or evaluation. To support clinician appraisal of available evidence, recommendations are given for development of questionnaire appraisal and for categorization of evidence levels on summary databases.

Involvement of parents in intervention for childhood speech sound disorders: a review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Internationally, speech and language therapists (SLTs) are involving parents and providing home tasks in intervention for phonology-based speech sound disorder (SSD). To ensure that SLTs' involvement of parents is guided by empirical research, a review of peer-reviewed published evidence is needed.

AIMS

To provide SLTs and researchers with a comprehensive appraisal and analysis of peer-reviewed published intervention research reporting parent involvement and the provision of home tasks in intervention studies for children with phonology-based SSD.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A systematic search and review was conducted. Academic databases were searched for peer-reviewed research papers published between 1979 and 2013 reporting on phonological intervention for SSD. Of the 176 papers that met the criteria, 61 were identified that reported on the involvement of parents and/or home tasks within the intervention. These papers were analysed using a quality appraisal tool. Details regarding the involvement of parents and home tasks were extracted and analysed to provide a summary of these practices within the evidence base.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

Parents have been involved in intervention research for phonology-based SSD. However, most of the peer-reviewed published papers reporting this research have provided limited details regarding what this involved. This paucity of information presents challenges for SLTs wishing to integrate external evidence into their clinical services and clinical decision-making. It also raises issues regarding treatment fidelity for researchers wishing to replicate published intervention research.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

The range of tasks in which parents were involved, and the limited details reported in the literature, present challenges for SLTs wanting to involve parents in intervention. Further high-quality research reporting more detail regarding the involvement of parents and home tasks in intervention for SSD is needed.

A Tutorial on Expository Discourse: Structure, Development, and Disorders in Children and Adolescents

PURPOSE

With the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, expository texts gain prominence at all grade levels and for all disciplines. Although the linguistic and cognitive complexities of exposition pose challenges for all children, they may create additional challenges for children and adolescents with language difficulties. Therefore, this tutorial provides background information for clinicians regarding the structure, development, and specific difficulties associated with exposition across the 4 modalities of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. This background is intended to help direct the attention of researchers and clinicians to needed advances in knowledge and skill if the profession is to adequately support the population of children and adolescents who struggle with language.

METHOD

This tutorial is based on an extensive narrative review of articles identified using a systematic search process. Cited research studies are discussed qualitatively, but intervention studies are also characterized in terms of the strength of their research designs. This method is undertaken to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the current state of research on these topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research needs are proposed to promote discussion among researchers and to prepare clinicians for the kinds of evidence they should be demanding as a basis for their practice.

Integrating external evidence of intervention effectiveness with both practice and the parent perspective: development of 'What Works' for speech, language, and communication needs

AIM

The aim of the study was to develop an ecologically valid synthesis of the evidence underpinning interventions for children with speech, language, and communication needs (SLCN), integrating a range of different data sources.

METHOD

Three sources of information were integrated: the Cochrane Review of interventions for children with primary speech and language delays/disorder; current practice from an online survey of 534 speech and language therapists and other professionals working with children with SLCN; and parent reports of preferred outcomes. Evidence was ranked as strong, moderate, or indicative.

RESULTS

Of the 58 interventions identified, three (5%) were found to have a strong level of evidence, 32 (56%) had moderate evidence, and 23 (39%) had indicative evidence. Five were universal interventions, the remainder targeted and universal. The integrated findings were then turned into an online interactive database, which is moderated and updated at regular intervals.

INTERPRETATION

There are a number of interventions that have a moderate or strong level of evidence underpinning them but they tend not to be those used by practitioners who often favour well-established familiar programmes even if they have only indicative evidence. There is a degree of complementarity between professional and parent views about outcomes, albeit with different emphases.

Undertaking and writing research that is important, targeted, and the best you can do

Conducting and writing research is a privilege. It is a privilege because researchers can change lives through their findings and can influence public knowledge and debate. It is also a privilege because researchers are reliant on the time and goodwill of participants (and colleagues), and research is often underpinned by funding raised by the public, either through taxes or philanthropic donations. This privilege comes with responsibility. Researchers have a responsibility to undertake research that is important, targeted, and of high quality. This editorial aims to inspire, challenge, and bolster the research efforts of individuals and teams.

The reliability of methodological ratings for speechBITE using the PEDro-P scale

BACKGROUND

speechBITE (http://www.speechbite.com) is an online database established in order to help speech and language therapists gain faster access to relevant research that can used in clinical decision-making. In addition to containing more than 3000 journal references, the database also provides methodological ratings on the PEDro-P (an adapted version of the PEDro) scale to assist clinicians in identifying the scientific quality of randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized control trials (NRCTs). While reliability of the PEDro scale has been established by similar allied health databases, the reliability of the PEDro-P scale has yet to be reported.

AIMS

To examine the reliability of PEDro-P scale ratings undertaken by raters on the speechBITE database and benchmark these results to the published reliability for the original PEDro scale. Both the total score (out of ten) as well as each of the 11 scale items were included in this analysis.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

speechBITE's volunteer rater network of 17 members rated the first 100 RCTs and NRCTs on the website. The criterion and overall scores for these ratings were compared with previously published reliability studies using the PEDro scale. Intra-class correlations and per cent agreement measures were used to establish and benchmark reliability.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

The speechBITE PEDro-P ratings ranged from fair to excellent for both the total score and for each of the 11 scale items. Furthermore, reliability was equal to that of other databases.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

speechBITE users can be confident of the reliability of ratings published on the website. Further analysis of differences between this study and previous PEDro scale reliability studies are discussed.

Speech and Language Therapy Interventions for Children with Cleft Palate: A Systematic Review

Objective

(1) To examine the evidence for the effectiveness of differences in timing and type of speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without a cleft lip and (2) to identify types of interventions assessed.

Design

Nine databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched between inception and March 2011 to identify published articles relating to speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. Studies that included at least 10 participants and reported outcome measures for speech and/or language measures were included. Studies where the experimental group had less than 90% of children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip were excluded. Two reviewers independently completed inclusion assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment for all studies identified.

Results

A total of 17 papers were evaluated: six randomized control trials and 11 observational studies. Studies varied widely on risk of bias, intervention used, and outcome measures reported. None of the studies had a low risk of bias. In terms of intervention approaches, seven studies evaluated linguistic approaches and 10 evaluated motor approaches. Outcomes measures did not support either approach over the other, and based on data reported it was difficult to ascertain which approach is more effective for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip.

Conclusions

The review found little evidence to support any specific intervention. Key uncertainties need to be identified and adequately powered, methodologically rigorous studies conducted to provide a secure evidence base for speech-language therapy practice in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip.

The influence of bilingualism on speech production: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Children who are bilingual and have speech sound disorder are likely to be under-referred, possibly due to confusion about typical speech acquisition in bilingual children.

AIMS

To investigate what is known about the impact of bilingualism on children's acquisition of speech in English to facilitate the identification and treatment of bilingual children with speech sound disorder.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A systematic review of studies from the last 50 years was conducted. Studies investigating speech acquisition in bilingual infants and children (where one language was English) were identified through searching seven electronic databases, bibliographies of relevant articles and e-mailing authors. Sixty-six studies investigating bilingual speech production met inclusion criteria, with 53 describing typically developing children and 13 describing children with speech sound disorder. The 66 studies were analysed thematically and summarized in terms of methods, key findings and underlying theories.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

There was limited evidence to suggest that bilingual children develop speech at a slower rate than their monolingual peers; however, there was evidence for qualitative differences and increased variation in speech production. Nearly all studies provide evidence for transfer between the two phonological and language structures, although the amount of transfer varied between studies. There was evidence of positive and negative transfer of features from the dominant language (L1) to the second language (L2) as well as from L2 to L1. Positive transfer became more evident with increased age and length of exposure to a second language. More recently researchers have moved away from investigating whether there are one or two phonological systems and accept that there are two systems that interact. Interest has shifted to examining how phonological systems interact and to identifying factors that influence interactions. The review revealed a number of inconsistencies in the findings of studies due to differences in methodology, languages investigated and degree of language exposure. Overall, measurement issues were addressed well but most studies provided limited sample information about language experience, schooling and socio-economic status.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

There are differences in speech sound acquisition between monolingual and bilingual children in terms of rate and patterns of error, with both positive and negative transfer occurring in bilingual children.