An investigation of the role of parental request for self-correction of stuttering in the Lidcombe Program

Treatment for Stuttering in Preschool-Age Children: A Qualitative Document Analysis of Treatment Programs

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify commonalities and differences between content components in stuttering treatment programs for preschool-age children.

METHOD

In this document analysis, a thematic analysis of the content was conducted of handbooks and manuals describing Early Childhood Stuttering Therapy, the Lidcombe Program, Mini-KIDS, Palin Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, RESTART Demands and Capacities Model Method, and the Westmead Program. First, a theoretical framework defining a content component in treatment was developed. Second, we coded and categorized the data following the procedure of reflexive thematic analysis. In addition, the first authors of the treatment documents have reviewed the findings in this study, and their feedback has been analyzed and taken into consideration.

RESULTS

Sixty-one content components within the seven themes-interaction, coping, reactions, everyday life, information, language, and speech-were identified across the treatment programs. The content component SLP providing information about the child's stuttering was identified across all treatment programs. All programs are multithematic, and no treatment program has a single focus on speech, language, or parent-child interaction. A comparison of the programs with equal treatment goals highlighted more commonalities in content components across the programs. The differences between the treatment programs were evident in both the number of content components that varied from seven to 39 and the content included in each treatment program.

CONCLUSIONS

Only one common content component was identified across programs, and the number and types of components vary widely. The role that the common content component plays in treatment effects is discussed, alongside implications for research and clinical practice.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25457929.

Searching for Lidcombe Program mechanisms of action: Inter-turn speaker latency

The Lidcombe Program is a well-established and efficacious treatment for early stuttering, but little is currently known about its mechanisms of action. The present report explores the possibility that inter-turn speaker latency might be associated with such mechanisms of action. Inter-turn speaker latency was measured in audio recordings of children, parents, and clinicians conversing, taken during Lidcombe Program treatment consultations. Five clinicians reduced their inter-turn speaker latencies during clinical consultations when they were speaking to children, in comparison with when they were speaking to parents. It is possible that inter-turn speaker latency is associated with the Lidcombe Program treatment process vicariously, and this possibility requires further research.

Lidcombe Program translation to community clinics in Australia and England

BACKGROUND

Early intervention is essential healthcare for stuttering, and the translation of research findings to community settings is a potential roadblock to it.

AIMS

This study was designed to replicate and extend the Lidcombe Program community translation findings of O'Brian et al. (2013) but with larger participant numbers, incorporating clinicians (speech pathologists/speech anlanguage therapists) and their clients from Australia and England.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Participants were 51 clinicians working in public and private clinics across Australia (n = 36) and England (n = 15), and 121 of their young stuttering clients and their families. Outcome measures were percentage of syllables stuttered (%SS), parent severity ratings at 9 months post-recruitment, number of clinic visits to complete Stage 1 of the Lidcombe Program, and therapist drift.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Community clinicians in both countries achieved similar outcomes to those from randomized controlled trials. Therapist drift emerged as an issue with community translation. Speech and language therapists in England attained outcomes 1.0%SS above the speech pathologists in Australia, although their scores were within the range attained in randomized trials.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Community clinicians from Australia and England can attain Lidcombe Program outcome benchmarks established in randomized trials. This finding is reassuring in light of the controlled conditions in clinical trials of the Lidcombe Program compared with its conduct in community practice. The long-term impact of therapist drift in community clinical practice with the Lidcombe Program has yet to be determined.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject The Lidcombe Program is an efficacious early stuttering intervention. Translation to clinical communities has been studied with one Australian cohort. What this paper adds to existing knowledge A larger translation cohort is studied, comprising community clinicians and children in Australia and England. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Community clinicians from Australia and England can attain Lidcombe Program outcome benchmarks established in randomized trials. This finding is reassuring in light of the controlled conditions in clinical trials of the Lidcombe Program compared with its conduct in community practice.

Implementation fidelity in parent-implemented interventions for stuttering

Knowledge of the fidelity with which interventions are delivered in research studies is crucial to meaningful examination of intervention impact. This paper presents a review of fidelity implementation (FOI) measurements in interventions jointly delivered by speech-language pathologists (SLP) and parents in research for preschool-aged children who stutter (CWS). Four key FOI components were examined: dosage, adherence, quality, responsiveness. Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this study. Articles were published between 1990 and 2020 described nine different interventions and examined CWS aged 2-6 years. No study reported all FOI components in both the clinical and the home setting and five did not report on any FOI component in either setting. The number of FOI components reported ranged from 0 to 4 in both clinical (M = 1.5) and home (M = 1.0) settings. Across studies, dosage was most often reported (n = 27, 75.0%) and responsiveness was least often reported (n = 16, 44.4%). The number of FOI components reported in articles did not increase over time, although a trend towards greater reporting in recent years was observed. Poor reporting of FOI in intervention research presents a serious methodological concern that impacts the ability of clinicians and researchers to interpret the findings of these studies. Rigorous measurement and reporting of FOI in future intervention studies is required in order to better inform evidence-based practices for interventions with CWS.

Systematic review of implementation quality of non-pharmacological stuttering intervention trials for children and adolescents

PURPOSE

This narrative systematic review in line with PRISMA guidelines aims to investigate the implementation quality of previously published group comparison clinical trials of stuttering interventions for children and adolescents (under age 18 years).

METHODS

We searched for publications in the databases Eric, PsychInfo, PubMed and Web of Science using the search terms 'stutt*' or 'stamm*'and 'intervention', 'trial' or 'treatment'. We reviewed the implementation elements reported in studies and how these elements were used to report intervention outcomes.

RESULTS

3,017 references published between 1974-2019 were identified. All references were screened for eligibility using predefined selection criteria resulting in 21 included studies. The implementation quality details reported varied between studies. Existing studies most commonly lacked details about the support system provided to SLPs administering the interventions and monitoring of treatment fidelity both in the clinical setting and in the home environment. Support systems for participant's parents and treatment dosage were generally well reported. Dosage was the most common implementation quality element considered in analyses of treatment effect and within discussions of findings.

CONCLUSION

Findings highlight the need for future clinical trials of stuttering interventions to closely adhere to systematic guidelines for reporting implementation quality to ensure reliability of trial outcomes. A checklist for reporting clinical trials of non-pharmacological stuttering interventions is proposed.

Intervención de la tartamudez en niños: una revisión integrativa de la literatura

RESUMEN Objetivo: describir las metodologías de intervención implementadas durante los últimos años en niños con tartamudez Métodos: se realizó la búsqueda de artículos empíricos de tratamiento en niños con tartamudez entre los 2.5 a 7 años. Se consideraron artículos publicados entre enero del año 2014 a junio del año 2020. La búsqueda se realizó en las bases de datos Embase, WOS, Pubmed y Scopus. Junto a lo anterior se realizó un análisis de las referencias de los artículos seleccionados. Revisión de la Literatura: se seleccionaron 11 artículos de 1.099 revisados. Se observaron distintas propuestas de intervención de las cuales el Programa Lidcombe es el que mayor evidencia presenta. La mayoría de las investigaciones fueron realizadas en hablantes de lengua inglesa. Los participantes son evaluados tanto en aspectos lingüísticos como no lingüísticos. Todos consideraron la participación de los padres en la intervención. No hubo investigaciones con mediciones a más de 24 meses. Predomina la modalidad de intervención individual. Conclusión: se evidencian buenos resultados terapéuticos en todas las intervenciones revisadas. En las investigaciones que compararon dos tipos de tratamiento no se observó la superioridad de uno por sobre otro.

Stuttering intervention in children: an integrative literature review

ABSTRACT Purpose: to describe intervention methodologies implemented in recent years in stuttering children. Methods: a search was performed for empirical articles on interventions in stuttering children aged 2.5 to 7 years. The search was carried out in Embase, WOS, Pubmed, and Scopus, considering articles published between January 2014 and June 2020. Literature Review: 11 articles were selected out of the 1,099 retrieved. Different approaches were observed, of which the Lidcombe program showed the most evidence. Most studies were conducted on English-speaking children and participants were assessed regarding linguistic and non-linguistic aspects. All studies considered parental involvement in the intervention. No investigation took measurements for more than 24 months. Individual interventions predominated. Conclusion: good therapeutic results were found in all reviewed interventions. Research comparing two types of treatments did not find one to be superior to the other.

Interventions for children and adolescents who stutter: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence map

PURPOSE

This systematic review critically appraises and maps the evidence for stuttering interventions in childhood and adolescence. We examine the effectiveness of speech-focused treatments, the efficacy of alternative treatment delivery methods and identify gaps in the research evidence.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases and three clinical trial registries were searched for systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and studies that applied an intervention with children (2-18 years) who stutter. Pharmacological interventions were excluded. Primary outcomes were a measure of stuttering severity and quality assessments were conducted on all included studies.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs met inclusion criteria and were analysed. Intervention approaches included direct (i.e. Lidcombe Program; LP) and indirect treatments (e.g. Demands and Capacities Model; DCM). All studies had moderate risk of bias. Treatment delivery methods included individual face-to-face, telehealth and group-based therapy. Both LP and DCM approaches were effective in reducing stuttering in preschool aged children. LP had the highest level of evidence (pooled effect size=-3.8, CI -7.3 to -0.3 for LP). There was no high-level evidence for interventions with school-aged children or adolescents. Alternative methods of delivery were as effective as individual face-to-face intervention.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this systematic review and evidence mapping are useful for clinicians, researchers and service providers seeking to understand the existing research to support the advancement of interventions for children and adolescence who stutter. Findings could be used to inform further research and support clinical decision-making.

Non-pharmacological interventions for stuttering in children six years and younger

BACKGROUND

Stuttering, or stammering as it is referred to in some countries, affects a child's ability to speak fluently. It is a common communication disorder, affecting 11% of children by four years of age. Stuttering can be characterized by sound, part word or whole word repetitions, sound prolongations, or blocking of sounds or airflow. Moments of stuttering can also be accompanied by non-verbal behaviours, including visible tension in the speaker's face, eye blinks or head nods. Stuttering can also negatively affect behavioural, social and emotional functioning.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the immediate and long-term effects of non-pharmacological interventions for stuttering on speech outcomes, communication attitudes, quality of life and potential adverse effects in children aged six years and younger. Secondary objective To describe the relationship between intervention effects and participant characteristics (i.e. child age, IQ, severity, sex and time since stuttering onset) at pretest.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, nine other databases and two trial registers on 16 September 2020, and Open Grey on 20 October 2020. There were no limits in regards to language, year of publication or type of publication. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and requested data on unpublished trials from authors of published studies. We handsearched conference proceedings and programmes from relevant conferences.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that assessed non-pharmacological interventions for stuttering in young children aged six years and younger. Eligible comparators were no intervention, wait list or management as usual.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four eligible RCTs, all of which compared the Lidcombe Program to a wait-list control group. In total, 151 children aged between two and six years participated in the four included studies. In the Lidcombe Program, the parent and their child visit a speech and language therapist (SLT) in a clinic. One study conducted clinic visits by telephone. In each clinic visit, parents were taught how to conduct treatment at home. Two studies took place in Australia, one in New Zealand and one in Germany. Two studies were conducted for nine months, one for 16 weeks and one for 12 weeks. The frequency of clinic visits and practice sessions at home varied within the programme. One study was partially funded by the Rotary Club, Wiesbaden, Germany; and one was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. One study did not report funding sources and another reported that they did not receive any funding for the trial.  All four studies reported the outcome of stuttering frequency. One study also reported on speech efficiency, defined as articulation rate. No studies reported the other predetermined outcomes of this review, namely stuttering severity; communication attitudes; emotional, cognitive or psychosocial domains; or adverse effects.  The Lidcombe Program resulted in a lower stuttering frequency percentage syllables stuttered (% SS) than a wait-list control group at post-test, 12 weeks, 16 weeks and nine months postrandomization (mean difference (MD) -2.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.48 to -0.84, 4 studies, 151 participants; P = 0.001; very low-certainty evidence).  However, as the Lidcombe Program is designed to take one to two years to complete, none of the participants in these studies had finished the complete intervention programme at any of the data collection points. We assessed stuttering frequency to have a high risk of overall bias due to high risk of bias in at least one domain within three of four included studies, and to have some concern of overall bias in the fourth, due to some concern in at least one domain. We found moderate-certainty evidence from one study showing that the Lidcombe Program may increase speech efficiency in young children. Only one study reported outcomes at long-term follow-up. The long-term effect of intervention could not be summarized, as the results for most of the children in the control group were missing. However, a within-group comparison was performed between the mean % SS at randomization and the mean % SS at the time of extended follow-up, and showed a significant reduction in frequency of stuttering.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that the Lidcombe Program may result in lower stuttering frequency and higher speech efficiency than a wait-list control group in children aged up to six years at post-test. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the very low and moderate certainty of the evidence and the high risk of bias identified in the included studies. Thus, there is a need for further studies from independent researchers, to evaluate the immediate and long-term effects of other non-pharmacological interventions for stuttering compared to no intervention or a wait-list control group.

The Lidcombe Program for Early Stuttering in Non-English-Speaking Countries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The Lidcombe Program is a stuttering treatment approach for children between the ages of 3 and 6 years. Most papers about the Lidcombe Program, however, are based on studies conducted in native English-speaking countries. The aim of this paper is to systematically review the delivery and implementation of the Lidcombe Program in non-native English-speaking countries.

SUMMARY

A resource search was conducted between October and November 2019. Scopus, PubMed, ASHA, Cochrane Library, ERIC, Google Scholar, and SpeechBITE databases and reference lists of relevant papers were searched for the identification process. Joanna Briggs Institute tools were used for the appraisal of the studies. The search yielded 8 studies conducted in non-native English-speaking countries. The Lidcombe Program is efficacious in non-native English-speaking countries when delivered to both preschool and young school age children who stutter. It is reported to be delivered with minor changes and challenges. The number of weekly clinic visits and the total time needed to reach zero or near-zero stuttering levels with the Lidcombe Program can be up to 3 times greater in non-native English-speaking countries than in native English-speaking countries, mostly due to the increased time needed to introduce the parental verbal contingencies. Key Messages: Speech and language therapists practicing in non-native English-speaking countries are encouraged to use the Lidcombe Program for both preschool and young school age children who stutter, although this can take more time than that reported in native English-speaking countries. Further investigation to explore the therapy process with children and parents in non-native English-speaking countries is needed.

Verbal Contingencies in the Lidcombe Program: A Noninferiority Trial

Purpose The Lidcombe Program is an efficacious and effective intervention for early stuttering. The treatment is based on parent verbal response contingent stimulation procedures, which are assumed to be responsible for treatment effect. The present trial tested this assumption. Method The design was a parallel, open plan, noninferiority randomized controlled trial. In the experimental arm, the five Lidcombe Program verbal contingencies were removed from parent instruction. The primary outcome was beyond-clinic percentage syllables stuttered at 18-month follow-up. Seventy-four children and their parents were randomized to one of the two treatment arms. Results Findings of noninferiority were inconclusive for the primary outcome of stuttering severity, based on a margin of 1.0 percentage syllables stuttered. Conclusions The inconclusive finding of noninferiority means it is possible that verbal contingencies make some contribution to the Lidcombe Program treatment effect. However, considering all primary and secondary outcomes, an overriding impression from the trial is a similarity of outcomes between the control and experimental arms. The clinical applications of the trial are discussed, along with further research that is needed.

Selecting Treatments and Monitoring Outcomes: The Circle of Evidence-Based Practice and Client-Centered Care in Treating a Preschool Child Who Stutters

Purpose

The purpose of the present clinical forum is to compare how 2 clinicians might select among therapy options for a preschool-aged child who presents with stuttering close to onset.

Method

I discuss approaches to full evaluation of the child's profile, advisement of evidence-based practice options open to the family, the need for monitoring of the child's response, and selection of other approaches, if the child appears nonresponsive to the 1st-line approach.

Results

Although some researchers and clinicians appear to favor endorsement of a single recommended treatment for early stuttering, I do not find this approach helpful or consistent with newer mandates for patient-centered care. I am also most comfortable recommending RESTART demands and capacities model as the 1st treatment approach, with parent consent, because its mechanism of action appears transparent and well-documented.

Conclusions

There are numerous well-supported intervention options for treating preschool children who stutter. No single therapy can possibly work for all clients. I discuss available options that I feel have sufficient evidence-based support for use with young children who stutter. I emphasize the need to consider more, not fewer, acceptable therapy options for children who do not respond positively to a selected treatment approach within a reasonable time frame.

Management options for pediatric patients who stutter: current challenges and future directions

Stuttering is a speech disorder, with onset often occurring in the preschool years. The prevalence of stuttering in young children is much higher than that in the general population, suggesting a high rate of recovery. However, we are unable to predict which children will recover without treatment, and it is widely acknowledged that stuttering therapy during childhood provides the best safeguard against chronic stuttering. This review reports on current evidence-based stuttering treatment options for preschoolers through to adolescents. We discuss the clinical challenges associated with treating pediatric clients who stutter at different stages of development and explore potential areas of treatment research that might serve to advance current clinical practice in the future.

Phase II trial of a syllable-timed speech treatment for school-age children who stutter

PURPOSE

A recent clinical trial (Andrews et al., 2012) showed Syllable Timed Speech (STS) to be a potentially useful treatment agent for the reduction of stuttering for school-age children. The present trial investigated a modified version of this program that incorporated parent verbal contingencies.

METHODS

Participants were 22 stuttering children aged 6-11 years. Treatment involved training the children and their parents to use STS in conversation. Parents were also taught to use verbal contingencies in response to their child's stuttered and stutter-free speech and to praise their child's use of STS. Outcome assessments were conducted pre-treatment, at the completion of Stage 1 of the program and 6 months and 12 months after Stage 1 completion.

RESULTS

Outcomes are reported for the 19 children who completed Stage 1 of the program. The group mean percent stuttering reduction was 77% from pre-treatment to 12 months post-treatment, and 82% with the two least responsive participants removed. There was considerable variation in response to the treatment. Eleven of the children showed reduced avoidance of speaking situations and 18 were more satisfied with their fluency post-treatment. However, there was some suggestion that stuttering control was not sufficient to fully eliminate situation avoidance for the children.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this trial are sufficiently encouraging to warrant further clinical trials of the method.

Parent verbal contingencies during the Lidcombe Program: Observations and statistical modeling of the treatment process

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to document parent presentation of the Lidcombe Program verbal contingencies and model potential relationships between contingency provision and treatment duration.

METHODS

Forty parent-child pairs undertaking the Lidcombe Program participated, 26 of whom completed Stage 1. All participants were included in the analyses. Parents completed weekly audio-recordings of treatment during practice sessions and a diary of treatment during natural conversations. The number and types of contingencies provided during practice sessions were counted for 520 recordings. Accelerated failure time modeling was used to investigate associations between contingency provision during the first 4 weeks of treatment and duration of time to complete Stage 1.

RESULTS

During practice sessions 91% of contingencies were for stutter-free speech, 6.8% were for stuttering and 2.7% were incorrectly applied. Parents often combined several verbal contingencies into one. During natural conversations, the number of verbal contingencies reportedly provided across the day was low, an average of 8.5 (SD=7.82) contingencies for stutter-free speech and 1.7 (SD=2.43) for unambiguous stuttering. There was a positive, significant relationship between the number of verbal contingencies for stuttering provided during the first 4 weeks of treatment and time taken to complete Stage 1.

CONCLUSION

Parents mostly provided the expected types of contingencies but the number was lower than expected. An unexpected association was found between number of verbal contingencies for stuttering and treatment duration. Further research is required to explore the relation between rates of parent verbal contingencies, treatment process duration, and treatment outcome.

Direct versus Indirect Treatment for Preschool Children who Stutter: The RESTART Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Stuttering is a common childhood disorder. There is limited high quality evidence regarding options for best treatment. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of direct treatment with indirect treatment in preschool children who stutter.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial with an 18 month follow-up, preschool children who stutter who were referred for treatment were randomized to direct treatment (Lidcombe Program; n = 99) or indirect treatment (RESTART-DCM treatment; n = 100). Main inclusion criteria were age 3-6 years, ≥3% syllables stuttered (%SS), and time since onset ≥6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of non-stuttering children at 18 months. Secondary outcomes included stuttering frequency (%SS), stuttering severity ratings by the parents and therapist, severity rating by the child, health-related quality of life, emotional and behavioral problems, and speech attitude.

RESULTS

Percentage of non-stuttering children for direct treatment was 76.5% (65/85) versus 71.4% (65/91) for indirect treatment (Odds Ratio (OR), 0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.4, p = .42). At 3 months, children treated by direct treatment showed a greater decline in %SS (significant interaction time x therapy: β = -1.89; t(282.82) = -2.807, p = .005). At 18 months, stuttering frequency was 1.2% (SD 2.1) for direct treatment and 1.5% (SD 2.1) for indirect treatment. Direct treatment had slightly better scores on most other secondary outcome measures, but no differences between treatment approaches were significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct treatment decreased stuttering more quickly during the first three months of treatment. At 18 months, however, clinical outcomes for direct and indirect treatment were comparable. These results imply that at 18 months post treatment onset, both treatments are roughly equal in treating developmental stuttering in ways that surpass expectations of natural recovery. Follow-up data are needed to confirm these findings in the longer term.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

isrctn.org ISRCTN24362190.