Amplifying the voices of underrepresented speech-language pathologists: A scoping review using the transformative research paradigm.

PURPOSE: To investigate the characteristics of studies that included underrepresented speech-language pathologists (SLPs) as research participants. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted using the principles of the transformative research paradigm, which promotes the meaningful involvement and empowerment of marginalised groups. Co-production with minority SLPs was facilitated. The search strategy was run in six databases, and the transformative checklist used for analysis. RESULT: Twenty studies were included. Bilingual and male SLPs were among the most commonly included underrepresented SLPs. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 16), and used survey methods. The studies provided valuable insights into the experiences and practices of underrepresented SLPs, and yielded practical solutions to foster inclusion and diversity in the profession. Most studies demonstrated a transformative potential, but the active engagement of underrepresented SLP participants in the research cycle was rarely demonstrated. CONCLUSION: This review calls for a shift in how and why research is conducted when including underrepresented SLP participants. Through the lens of the transformative research paradigm, we can rethink the broader aim of research and the role of researchers and participants. Using research as a platform to give visibility, voice, and agency to minority groups can stimulate change and equity in the profession.

Editorial Perspective: Speaking up for developmental language disorder - the top 10 priorities for research.

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental conditions, yet is chronically underserved, with far fewer children receiving clinical services than expected from prevalence estimates, and very little research attention relative to other neurodevelopmental conditions of similar prevalence and severity. This editorial describes a research priority-setting exercise undertaken by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, which aims to redress this imbalance. From consultations with researchers, practitioners and individuals with lived experience, 10 research priorities emerge. Our goal is to share these priorities with the wider research community, to raise awareness and encourage research collaboration to improve outcomes for young people with DLD.

Research priorities to improve the health of children and adults with dysphagia: a National Institute of Health Research and Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists research priority setting partnership.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct the first UK-wide research priority setting project informing researchers and funders of critical knowledge gaps requiring investigation to improve the health and well-being of patients with eating, drinking and swallowing disorders (dysphagia) and their carers. DESIGN: A priority setting partnership between the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists using a modified nominal group technique. A steering group and NIHR representatives oversaw four project phases: (1) survey gathering research suggestions, (2) verification and aggregation of suggestions with systematic review research recommendations, (3) multistakeholder workshop to develop research questions, (4) interim priority setting via an online ranking survey and (5) final priority setting. SETTING: UK health services and community. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with dysphagia, carers and professionals who work with children and adults with dysphagia from the UK. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six speech and language therapists submitted 332 research suggestions related to dysphagia. These were mapped to 88 research recommendations from systematic reviews to form 24 'uncertainty topics' (knowledge gaps that are answerable by research). Four patients, 1 carer and 30 healthcare professionals collaboratively produced 77 research questions in relation to these topics. Thereafter, 387 patients, carers and professionals with experience of dysphagia prioritised 10 research questions using an interim prioritisation survey. Votes and feedback for each question were collated and reviewed by the steering and dysphagia reference groups. Nine further questions were added to the long-list and top 10 lists of priority questions were agreed. CONCLUSION: Three top 10 lists of topics grouped as adults, neonates and children, and all ages, and a further long list of questions were identified by patients, carers and healthcare professionals as research priorities to improve the lives of those with dysphagia.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Speech and Language Therapy Profession and Their Patients.

Introduction: The UK's response to the COVID-19 pandemic presented multiple challenges to healthcare services including the suspension of non-urgent care. The impact on neurorehabilitation professions, including speech and language therapy (SLT), has been substantial. Objectives: To review the changes to SLT services triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to referral rates, service delivery and outcomes, as well as examining the contribution of SLTs to the neurorehabilitation of COVID-19 patients. Methods: Two surveys were distributed to Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) members exploring experiences of service provision at 6 weeks and 22 weeks after the pandemic was declared in the UK. Responses to closed-ended questions, including questions regarding referral numbers were analyzed descriptively and compared at the two time-points. A database comprising routine clinical data from SLT services across the UK was used to compare information on patients receiving services prior to and during the pandemic. Data on COVID-19 patients was extracted, and findings are provided descriptively. Results: Referrals to SLT services during the acute COVID-19 period in the UK were substantially less than in the same period in 2019. A number of service changes were common including adopting more flexible approaches to provision (such as tele-therapy) and being unable to provide services to some patients. Database analysis suggests fewer patients have accessed SLT since the pandemic began, including a reduction in neurorehabilitation patients. For those who received SLT, the outcomes did not change. SLTs supported a range of needs of COVID-19 patients. Treatment outcomes for COVID-19 patients with dysphagia were positive. Discussion: The pandemic has affected neurorehabilitation and SLT services broadly: referral patterns are different, usual care has been disrupted and interventions have been modified affecting the impact on patient outcomes both positively and negatively. Some patients with COVID-19 require and benefit from SLT intervention.

Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting.

A protocol for involving individuals presenting with developmental language disorder (DLD) (iDLD) and their parents/carers (iDLDPC) in a research priority setting exercise is presented. iDLD have difficulties with communication skills, such as understanding language, word-finding and discourse. Such difficulties mean existing research priority setting protocols are difficult for iDLD to access, since they require sophisticated communication skills. Thus, a novel protocol for involving iDLD in these exercises is warranted. The same protocol is recommended for use with iDLDPC, to ensure accessibility. The protocol is presented in 4 steps. Step 1 describes a program of activities delivered by trained, specialist DLD speech and language therapists (SLTs) that prepares iDLD/iDLDPC for involvement. Step 2 outlines an approach to elicit iDLD/iDLDPC's opinions on research priorities. Steps 3 and 4 describe methods to analyze and integrate this data at multiple stages of the research priority setting process. 9 trained specialist DLD SLTs delivered steps 1 and 2. 17 iDLDs and 25 iDLDPCs consented to involvement. Opinions from all participants were elicited, and this data was used to influence the process and output of the exercise. An advantage of this protocol is its accommodation of the heterogeneity in support needs of iDLD/iDLDPC, through a menu of options, whilst also providing a structured framework. Due to the novelty of the protocol, the methods for data integration were developed by the research group. These are potential limitations of the protocol, and may bring the reliability and validity under scrutiny, which are yet to be tested. This protocol enables meaningful involvement of iDLD/iDLDPC in research priority setting and could be utilized for people with other kinds of speech, language or communication needs. Further research should evaluate the effectiveness of the protocol and whether it can be adapted for involvement of such populations in other research studies.

Outcome measurement in speech and language therapy: a digital journey.

BACKGROUND: Evidencing the impact of speech and language therapy interventions is challenging. The UK's professional body for speech and language therapists (SLTs) is supporting a consistent approach to outcome measurement and analysis using Therapy Outcome Measures (TOMs). OBJECTIVE: To develop a digital solution for collecting TOMs data, evaluate the impact of therapeutic interventions and explore contributing factors to outcome variation across clinical areas. METHOD: Agile methodology was applied to software development. Organisations were recruited to provide data. Criteria were identified to exemplify outcome variability. RESULTS: A digital tool was developed. 21 organisations provided data on 16 356 individuals. Improvement in at least one domain of TOMs occurred in 77.1% of instances. Data for two clinical areas exemplify the tool's effectiveness in highlighting the impact of speech and language therapy. CONCLUSION: This established outcomes data set can be used to evaluate the impact of speech and language therapy, and explore variation in outcomes.

Technology-enhanced writing therapy for people with aphasia: results of a quasi-randomized waitlist controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Acquired writing impairment, or dysgraphia, is common in aphasia. It affects both handwriting and typing, and may recover less well than other aphasic symptoms. Dysgraphia is an increasing priority for intervention, particularly for those wishing to participate in online written communication. Effective dysgraphia treatment studies have been reported, but many did not target, or did not achieve, improvements in functional writing. Functional outcomes might be promoted by therapies that exploit digital technologies, such as voice recognition and word prediction software. AIMS: This study evaluated the benefits of technology-enhanced writing therapy for people with acquired dysgraphia. It aimed to explore the impact of therapy on a functional writing activity, and to examine whether treatment remediated or compensated for the writing impairment. The primary question was: Does therapy improve performance on a functional assessment of writing; and, if so, do gains occur only when writing is assisted by technology? Secondary measures examined whether therapy improved unassisted written naming, functional communication, mood and quality of life. METHODS & PROCEDURES: The study employed a quasi-randomized waitlist controlled design. A total of 21 people with dysgraphia received 12 h of writing therapy either immediately or after a 6-week delay. The primary outcome measure was a functional assessment of writing, which was administered in handwriting and on a computer with assistive technology enabled. Secondary measures were: The Boston Naming Test (written version), Communication Activities of Daily Living-2, Visual Analogue Mood Scales (Sad question), and the Assessment of Living with Aphasia. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine change on the outcome measures over two time points, between which the immediate group had received therapy but the delayed group had not. Pre-therapy, post-therapy and follow-up scores on the measures were also examined for all participants. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Time × group interactions in the ANOVA analyses showed that therapy improved performance on the functional writing assessment. Further interactions with condition showed that gains occurred only when writing was assisted by technology. There were no significant interactions in the analyses of the secondary outcome measures. A treatment effect on these measures was therefore unconfirmed. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This study showed that 21 people with dysgraphia improved on a functional writing measure following therapy using assistive technology. The results suggest that treatment compensated for, rather than remediated, the impairment, given that unassisted writing did not change. Further studies of technology-enhanced writing therapy are warranted.