Randomized controlled trial comparing Parent Led Therapist Supervised Articulation Therapy (PLAT) with routine intervention for children with speech disorders associated with cleft palate.

BACKGROUND: A total of 68% of pre-school children with cleft palate have speech problems requiring speech therapy. There is a lack of access to regular targeted therapy. Parent training leads to positive outcomes in early communication skills in cleft palate and non-cleft speech disorders. Connected health has been used to address inadequate access to therapy, providing intervention to those who would not otherwise receive therapy. AIMS: To evaluate the speech, activity and participation outcomes of Parent Led, Therapist Supervised, Articulation Therapy (PLAT) compared with routine speech therapy intervention in parent-child dyads. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A total of 44 children, aged 2.9-7.5 years, were included in a two-centre, two-phase randomized controlled trial. Informed consent and assent were obtained. Participants and speech and language therapists (SLTs) were unblinded to the groups. Parents, in the parent-trained group (n = 23), attended 2 days' training, received a detailed speech therapy programme, and undertook intervention over 12 weeks supported by the cleft specialist SLT using FaceTime and one face-to-face session. In the control arm (n = 21), parent-child dyads received six therapy sessions over 12 weeks with a research SLT, comparable with usual care. Speech recordings were undertaken pre- and post-intervention. Percent consonant correct (PCC) was analysed by external SLTs blinded to the time and group. Activity and participation were measured using the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) and Focus on Outcomes for Children Under Six (FOCUS) questionnaire. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: There was no evidence of an interaction between Time and Group or an overall statistical difference between groups for PCC scores. There was a statistically significant difference over time for both groups (words: p < 0.002; confidence interval (CI) = 9.38-16.27; d = 0.57; sentences: p < 0.002; CI = 16.04-25.97; d = 0.23). Effect sizes were medium for words and small for sentences. For intelligibility and participation, there was no evidence of an interaction between Time and Group or an overall statistical difference between groups. A statistically significant difference over time was found for intelligibility (F = 29.97, d.f. = 1, 42, p < 0.001, 95 % CI = 1.45-3.15 d = 0.46) and for participation (F = 14.19, d.f. = 1, 41, p < 0.001 95% CI = 7.63-25.03; d = 0.36) with FOCUS results indicating clinically meaningful (parent-led group) and significant (control group) change in participation. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: PLAT can be as effective as routine care in changing speech, activity and participation outcomes for children with cleft palate, when supported by a specialist cleft SLT using connected health. What this paper adds What is already known on this subject Over 50% of children with cleft palate require speech therapy. However, there is a lack of timely, accessible speech therapy services in the UK and Ireland. Previous studies have shown that parents can deliver therapy effectively, and that connected health can support the delivery of speech therapy. This study aims to provide evidence that parent-led therapy with the supervision of a specialist cleft therapist using FaceTime is effective. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This randomized controlled trial indicates that parents can be trained to deliver therapy for children with cleft palate speech disorders, under the supervision of an SLT. This approach results in improved speech, activity and participation outcomes similar to routine care. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study indicates that both parent-led articulation therapy and routine care showed meaningful gains in speech, activity and participation, and that parent-led articulation therapy when supported by a cleft SLT using connected health could be an additional service delivery model for children with cleft palate speech disorders.

Assessing speech at three years of age in the cleft palate population: a scoping review of assessment practices.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus in the UK regarding the types of speech samples or parameters of speech that should be assessed at 3 years of age in children with cleft palate ± cleft lip (CP±L), despite cleft units routinely assessing speech at this age. The standardization of assessment practices would facilitate comparisons of outcomes across UK cleft units; earlier identification of speech impairments-which could support more timely treatments; and more reliable recording of therapy impacts and surgical interventions. AIMS: To explore assessment practices used to assess speech in 3-year-old children with CP±L, including speech parameters, methods of assessment and the nature of the speech sample used. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A broad examination of the literature was undertaken through the use of a scoping review conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Search terms were generated from a preliminary search and then used in the main search (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO). MAIN CONTRIBUTION: A combination of approaches (medical, linguistic, developmental and functional) is required to assess CP±L speech at age 3. A developmental approach is recommended at this age, considering the complexity of speech profiles at age 3, in which typically developing speech processes may occur alongside cleft speech characteristics. A combined measure for both nasal emission and turbulence, and an overall measure for velopharyngeal function for speech, show potential for assessment at this age. Categorical ordinal scales are frequently used; the use of continuous scales has yet to be fully explored at age 3. Although single-word assessments, including a subset of words developed for cross-linguistic comparisons, are frequently used, more than one type of speech sample may be needed to assess speech at this age validly. The lack of consensus regarding speech samples highlights a need for further research into the types of speech samples 3-year-olds can complete; the impact of incomplete speech samples on outcome measures (particularly relevant at this age when children may be less able to complete a full sample); the impact of different speech samples on the validity of assessments; and the reliability of listener judgements. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Whilst a medical model and linguistic approaches are often central in assessments of age-3 cleft speech, this review highlights the importance of developmental and functional approaches to assessment. Cross-linguistic single-word assessments show potential, and would facilitate the comparison of UK speech outcomes with other countries. Further research should explore the impact of different speech samples and rating scales on assessment validity and listener reliability.

Healthcare professional and interpreter perspectives on working with and caring for non-English speaking families in a tertiary paediatric healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of healthcare professionals and interpreters in relation to working with and caring for non-English speaking families accessing National Health Service paediatric tertiary health care services. DESIGN: Focus group and interview methods were used to elicit the views of healthcare professionals and interpreters at one tertiary paediatric hospital in the United Kingdom. Data were subjected to framework analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified a number of factors affecting communication and their interaction with non-English speaking families in this setting, including time, role uncertainty, and interlinked dimensions of culture and gender. They also described how the nature of this communication could impact on both the delivery of care and the patient and family experience. These findings highlight gaps in services, training, and support for families, staff and interpreters. These need to be recognised and addressed by those in practice to improve care delivery and help tackle health inequalities. CONCLUSION: Our data show how significant the impact of language barriers can be, and the need to consider not only how communication can be improved, but also how this is situated in the specific context of tertiary paediatric care as well as a wider social context of inequity.