Alterations and Preservations: Practices and Perspectives of Speech-Language Pathologists Regarding the Intervention of Thickened Liquids for Swallowing Problems.

PURPOSE: The intervention of thickened liquids (TL) is commonly used to reduce aspiration in people with dysphagia. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have traditionally believed it is an effective intervention. Recent articles highlight limited evidence, poor acceptance, and a variety of unintended consequences. This study explores if current debates have been reflected in SLP practices and perspectives. METHOD: An e-survey was developed. Participants were recruited via professional associations in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to explore the data. Principal component analysis was used to summarize SLP practices and perspectives. RESULTS: The 370 respondents represented mainly experienced, confident, hospital-based clinicians. While 20% of respondents frequently recommend TL, 61% believe it to be a burdensome treatment. "Best treatment" and "It works" beliefs continue to underpin decision making. Those who recommend TL most often are most influenced by penetration, coughing, and their own clinical experience. They are more likely to believe TL is evidence based and effective, reduces aspiration, and improves hydration. Person-centeredness is important among all respondents, although significant numbers would implement TL against patient wishes. Improvements in aspiration status and quality of life rank highly as reasons to discontinue TL. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that fewer respondents are regularly using TL. Divergent groups are evident with those frequently employing and believing in the efficacy of TL and those who do not. While current debates are influencing practice, there clearly remains a significant number of SLPs continuing to recommend TL. This study's findings highlight both alterations and preservations in the discipline's approach to TL and calls for SLPs to reframe our thinking regarding this intervention as well as consider alternative options in this treatment space. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24317110.

Behavioural Interventions in People with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of behavioural interventions in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials in four different databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed). The methodological quality of eligible articles was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2), after which meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 37 studies were included. Overall, a significant, large pre-post interventions effect size was found. To compare different types of interventions, all behavioural interventions and conventional dysphagia treatment comparison groups were categorised into compensatory, rehabilitative, and combined compensatory and rehabilitative interventions. Overall, significant treatment effects were identified favouring behavioural interventions. In particular, large effect sizes were found when comparing rehabilitative interventions with no dysphagia treatment, and combined interventions with compensatory conventional dysphagia treatment. When comparing selected interventions versus conventional dysphagia treatment, significant, large effect sizes were found in favour of Shaker exercise, chin tuck against resistance exercise, and expiratory muscle strength training. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural interventions show promising effects in people with oropharyngeal dysphagia. However, due to high heterogeneity between studies, generalisations of meta-analyses need to be interpreted with care.

Evaluation of an intensive voice treatment to reduce anterior drooling in children with cerebral palsy: Protocol for a concurrent multiple-baseline, single case experimental design study.

Anterior drooling is common in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and poses significant risks to the child's health. Causes of drooling include oro-motor dysfunction, inefficient swallowing and reduced sensation in the orofacial musculature. Behavioural interventions are frequently recommended to reduce drooling; however, this is in the absence of high-quality research evidence. This paper describes a protocol for evaluating the effectiveness of the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD (LSVT LOUD®) in reducing drooling; and optimising speech and swallowing in a group of children with CP. A structured and systematic visual analysis supplemented with statistical analyses will be used to analyse the data. The risk of bias in n-of-1 trials (RoBiNT) Scale [1] guided the design and implementation of the study.

Drooling in children with neurodisability: A survey of Australian speech-language pathologists' practice.

Purpose: In the absence of evidence-based guidelines, this study sought to understand current speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) practice when treating drooling in children with a neurodisability.Method: Descriptive research using cross-sectional survey methodology. Online survey methods were used to obtain specific information on Australian SLPs' self-reported assessment and treatment practices relative to working with children with neurodisability who drool. Questions focussed on level of expertise, treatment approaches and barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) in this area. Participants were sourced through three targeted associations/organisations. Data were analysed using descriptive and non-parametric statistics.Result: Participants were Australian SLPs who had recent experience working with children with neurodisability who drool (n = 68). They favoured informal rather than formal methods for assessment. Preferred treatment techniques included behavioural intervention methods (46-53%) and modifying positioning (43.3%). Client suitability dominated reasoning regarding treatment selection (60%) with 57% of SLPs reporting EBP barriers.Conclusion: Drooling was perceived to be a complex practice area for which SLPs desire additional education. Despite availability, valid and reliable assessments of drooling were not commonly used. Clinicians have limited evidence to support their practice: further research is needed to establish evidence-based treatments for drooling.

Behavioural interventions to treat drooling in children with neurodisability: a systematic review.

AIM: To review the evidence for behavioural interventions to reduce drooling in children with neurodisability. METHOD: A detailed search in eight databases sought studies that: (1) included participants aged 0 to 18 years with neurodisability and drooling; (2) provided behavioural interventions targeting drooling or a drooling-related behaviour; and (3) used experimental designs. Two reviewers extracted data from full-text papers independently. Results were tabulated for comparison. The Risk of Bias assessment in N-of-1 Trials scale for single case experimental designs (SCEDs) and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were applied. RESULTS: Of an initial yield of 763, seven SCEDs and one RCT were included. Behavioural interventions included the use of reinforcement, prompting, self-management, instruction, extinction, overcorrection, and fading. Each assessed body functions or structures' outcomes (drooling frequency and severity); three included activity outcomes (mouth drying, head control, eye contact, and vocalizations) and none assessed participation or quality of life. While each study reported positive effects of intervention, risk of bias was high. INTERPRETATION: Low-level evidence suggests behavioural interventions may be useful for treatment of drooling in children with neurodisability. Well-designed intervention studies are urgently needed to determine effectiveness. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Behavioural interventions used to treat drooling included reinforcement, prompting, self-management, extinction, overcorrection, instruction, and fading. Interventions targeted body structures and function-level outcomes and activity-level outcomes. Low-level evidence supports the use of behavioural intervention to treat drooling.