What are the primary influences on treatment decisions? How does this reflect on evidence-based practice? Indications from the discipline of speech and language therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1178-1189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arlene McCurtin ◽  
Amanda M. Clifford
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Language Therapy ◽  
Speech And Language Therapy

scholarly journals Controlled before-after study to evaluate change in evidence-based practice of speech and language therapy students

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Durieux ◽  
Christelle Maillart ◽  
Anne-Françoise Donneau ◽  
Françoise Pasleau
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Language Therapy ◽  
Speech And Language Therapy

scholarly journals RELYING ON INFORMAL SOURCES IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY: WHY AND HOW?

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatma Canan Durgungoz
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Clinical Reasoning ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Language Therapy ◽  
Speech And Language Therapy ◽  
Thematic Approach ◽  
Cumulative Experience

This study aims to explore whether and why speech and language therapists (SLTs) use informal sources to guide their intervention decisions for children with developmental language delay (DLD). A qualitative study was conducted. Sixteen Turkish SLTs participated in this study. The methods of interviewing, participant observation and audio diary were used. An inductive thematic approach was taken to analyse the data. Five main themes were revealed from the data: 'The lack of trust in the formal standardised tests and sources', 'experience over theory', 'trial-error, 'other professionals’ opinion' and 'instinct' showed that the SLTs value variety of sources and their cumulative experience when making an intervention decision. While evidence-based practice (EBP) has been increasingly used and encouraged in the SLT profession, this study shows that informal sources play a significant role in SLTs' clinical reasoning. This study sheds light on the behind factors of relying on informal sources to make intervention decisions. The role and dynamic of using informal sources could help understand the value and risks of this approach in clinical reasoning. <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0895/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>

scholarly journals Evidence-based intervention for preschool children with primary speech and language impairments: Child Talk – an exploratory mixed-methods study

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue E Roulstone ◽  
Julie E Marshall ◽  
Gaye G Powell ◽  
Juliet Goldbart ◽  
Yvonne E Wren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Language Therapy ◽  
Underserved Communities ◽  
Speech And Language Therapy ◽  
Therapy Interventions

BackgroundThe Child Talk study aimed to develop an evidence-based framework to support the decision-making of speech and language therapists (SLTs) as they design and plan interventions appropriate to the needs of individual children with primary speech and language impairments and their families. The need for early identification and effective intervention for these children continues to be a government policy priority because of the link between children’s early speech and language skills and their broader well-being and outcomes in later life. The first phase of Child Talk sought to map and describe current SLT practice for these children; identify and summarise the existing research evidence relating to practice; and investigate the perspectives of parents, early years practitioners, preschool children and ‘underserved’ communities on speech and language therapy. The second phase of Child Talk focused on the development of a toolkit – assessment tools, outcome measures and a data set – to support future service and economic evaluations of the framework.MethodsChild Talk adopted a mixed-methods design. Quantitative methods included surveys and investigated the prevalence and patterns of intervention usage; qualitative data collection methods included focus groups, interviews and reflection to investigate participants’ perspectives and understandings of interventions. Data analysis methods included descriptive and inferential statistics, thematic and content analysis and framework analysis. Participants were recruited nationally through six NHS sites, professional bodies, parent groups and advertising. Participants included SLTs (n = 677), parents (n = 84), preschool children (n = 24), early years practitioners (n = 31) and ‘underserved’ communities (n = 52).Key findingsSpeech and language therapy interventions were characterised in terms of nine themes, viewed as comprehensive and inclusive by practitioners. Relevant assessments, interventions and outcome domains were identified for the nine themes. Areas of tacit knowledge and underspecified processes contributed to variability in the detail of the framework. Systematic reviews identified 58 relevant and robust studies (from 55,271 papers retrieved from the initial literature search). The number of studies relevant to each theme varied from 1 to 33. Observational data on preschool children’s perspectives on speech and language therapy interventions revealed the dynamic nature of their interaction with different activities and people within therapy sessions. Parents’ experiences of speech and language therapy were generally positive although some reported that the rationale for therapy was not always clear. Parental perspectives in underserved communities suggested that, although parents were confident about how to support children’s language development, they were less informed about the nature of language impairments and the function of speech and language therapy. The availability of information regarding resources directed towards speech and language therapy services was poor. In particular, services lacked both a culture of collecting outcome data routinely and measures of professional input and costs associated with their activities.ConclusionA descriptive framework of SLT practice has been developed to support the discussions between therapists and families when making decisions regarding the selection of interventions and outcome measures. Further research is needed to address gaps in the intervention framework and evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in improving outcomes for preschool children with primary speech and language impairments.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006369.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

A multiple-case study testing the implementation of a non-aphasia-specific app into evidence-based therapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Spring 2021) ◽  
Author(s):  
Grégoire Python ◽  
Giulia Krethlow ◽  
Daphné Chételat
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Tablet Computers ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Language Therapy ◽  
Speech And Language Therapy ◽  
Multiple Case ◽  
Treatment Gains ◽  
Evidence Based Therapy

Digital treatments on tablet computers have become increasingly popular to deliver speech and language therapy. Practice guidelines have been proposed to successfully integrate non-aphasia-specific apps into rehabilitation, but few evidence-based reports are available yet. Three individuals with acquired language disorders trained at home with a mainstream app containing personalized material. The treatment plan was specific to each individual and supervised by a speech and language therapist. All three participants showed significant improvements in picture naming that were specific to the treated items and treatment gains were overall maintained after a couple of months. Treatments carefully designed and delivered in an app led to specific language improvements similar to those previously reported in the literature with or without technology. There is presently no proof that ready-to-go dedicated apps are more effective than this kind of mainstream app allowing the creation and adaptation of materials and tasks to evidence-based knowledge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document