UK speech and language therapists' assessment of children's expressive language, and functional impairment and impact, following the CATALISE publications.

BACKGROUND: In 2016/17, the CATALISE Consortium published the results of a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study, representing agreement among professionals about the definition and process of identification of children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) (Bishop et al., 2016, 2017). The extent to which the current clinical practice of UK speech and language therapists (SLTs) reflects the CATALISE consensus statements is unknown. AIMS: To investigate how UK SLTs' expressive language assessment practices reflect the CATALISE documents' emphasis on the functional impairment and impact caused by DLD, by examining: whether multiple sources of assessment information are gathered; how standardised and non-standardised sources are combined in clinical decision-making, and how clinical observation and language sample analysis are utilised. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: An anonymous, online survey was carried out between August 2019 and January 2020. It was open to UK-based paediatric SLTs who assess children up to age 12 with unexplained difficulties using language. Questions probed different aspects of expressive language assessment which are referred to in the CATALISE consensus statements and supplementary comments, and asked about participants' familiarity with the CATALISE statements. Responses were analysed using simple descriptive statistics and content analysis. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 104 participants, from all four regions of the United Kingdom, working in a range of clinical settings with different levels of professional experience of DLD. The findings indicate that clinical assessment practices broadly align with the CATALISE statements. Although clinicians carry out standardised assessments more frequently than other types of assessment, they also gather information from other sources and use this alongside standardised test scores to inform clinical decisions. Clinical observation and language sample analysis are commonly utilised to evaluate functional impairment and impact, along with parent/carer/teacher and child report. However, asking about the child's own perspective could be more widely utilised. The findings also highlight a lack of familiarity with the details of the CATALISE documents among two thirds of the participants. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Assessment practices broadly align with the CATALISE statements, but there is a need for greater clarity regarding terminology and the assessment of functional language impairment and impact. This research should prompt discussion in the profession about how to further develop and adopt expressive language assessment practices which reflect the CATALISE consensus and support effective assessment. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject The CATALISE consortium documents on Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) were published in 2016/17. The extent to which expressive language assessment practice in the United Kingdom reflects the new definition and statements on assessment has not previously been investigated. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This survey indicates that speech and language therapists in the United Kingdom assessing children for DLD mostly balance standardised language test scores with other sources of information in clinical decision-making, and utilise clinical observation and language sample analysis to consider functional impairment and the impact of the language disorder. However, important questions are raised regarding the robustness and objectivity with which these key parameters are currently defined and evaluated. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Clinicians, individually and at service level, are encouraged to reflect on their assessment of functional impairment and the impact of language disorder and to take steps to incorporate this where necessary. Professional guidance and clinical tools to facilitate robust, objective assessment would support clinical practice that aligns with expert consensus.

Practitioners' ability to remotely develop understanding for personalised care and support planning: a thematic analysis of multiple data sources from the feasibility phase of the Dementia Personalised Care Team (D-PACT) intervention.

Practitioner understanding of patients' preferences, wishes and needs is essential for personalised health care i.e., focusing on 'what matters' to people based on their individual life situation. To develop such an understanding, dementia practitioners need to use communication practices that help people share their experiences, preferences, and priorities. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, dementia support is likely to continue to be delivered both remotely and in-person. This study analysed multiple sources of qualitative data to examine the views of practitioners, people living with dementia and carers, and researchers on how an understanding of what matters to people living with dementia can be developed remotely via telephone and video call. Access to environmental stimuli, the remote use of visual tools, peoples' tendency to downplay or omit details about their troubles and carers' ability to disclose privately were interpreted, through thematic analysis, to be factors affecting how practitioners sought to develop understanding remotely. Cumulatively, findings show that while remote support created unique challenges to practitioners' ability to develop understanding for personalised care, practitioners developed adaptive strategies to overcome some of these challenges. Further research should examine how, when and for whom these adapted practices for remote personalised care work, informing the development of evidence-based guidance and training on how practitioners can remotely develop the understanding required for personalised care.

Longitudinal realist evaluation of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) intervention: protocol.

BACKGROUND: Different dementia support roles exist but evidence is lacking on which aspects are best, for whom, and in what circumstances, and on their associated costs and benefits. Phase 1 of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team programme (D-PACT) developed a post-diagnostic primary care-based intervention for people with dementia and their carers and assessed the feasibility of a trial. AIM: Phase 2 of the programme aims to 1) refine the programme theory on how, when, and for whom the intervention works; and 2) evaluate its value and impact. DESIGN & SETTING: A realist longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted in urban, rural, and coastal areas across South West and North West England where low-income or ethnic minority populations (for example, South Asian) are represented. Design was informed by patient, public, and professional stakeholder input and phase 1 findings. METHOD: High-volume qualitative and quantitative data will be collected longitudinally from people with dementia, carers, and practitioners. Analyses will comprise the following: 1) realist longitudinal case studies; 2) conversation analysis of recorded interactions; 3) statistical analyses of outcome and experience questionnaires; 4a) health economic analysis examining costs of delivery; and 4b) realist economic analysis of high-cost events and 'near misses'. All findings will be synthesised using a joint display table, evidence appraisal tool, triangulation, and stakeholder co-analysis. CONCLUSION: The realist evaluation will describe how, why, and for whom the intervention does or does not lead to change over time. It will also demonstrate how a non-randomised design can be more appropriate for complex interventions with similar questions or populations.

'Do I have the capacity to make capacity judgements?' Researcher reflections from a person-centred dementia support study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Adults lacking capacity are under-represented in research; therefore, the evidence-base surrounding their support needs is inferior compared to other populations. Involving this group in research is fraught with challenges, including researcher uncertainties about how to carry out capacity judgements. Whilst ethical guidelines and principles provide overarching guidance, there is a lack of detailed guidance and evidence-based training, incorporating practical 'on the ground' strategies and advice on communication practices. Experiences and reflections on research procedures used to gauge and address capacity are under reported, resulting in a lack of shared knowledge within the field. DESIGN: To help address this, we engaged in researcher (co)meta-reflection on the informed capacity judgement procedure for initial consent, within our current, person-centred dementia intervention feasibility study. Our objective was to identify areas to improve our approach, but to also put forward suggestions for wider change within ethical research practice. RESULTS: Findings reveal challenges and facilitators relating to six areas: 'Conducting time sensitive research whilst remaining person-centred and building relationships'; 'Information sharing and supporting communication'; 'Applying the process flexibly'; 'The role of the carer and the consultee process'; 'Judging assent and dissent' and 'Researcher related factors'. We questioned our 'capacity to make capacity judgements' in terms of both our skills and research time constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experiences, we argue for greater open discussion between researchers, Patient and Public Involvement contributors and Research Ethics Committees at initial project planning stages. We recommend training and guidance focuses on building researcher skills in applying a standard process flexibly, emphasising naturalistic, conversational approaches to capacity judgement. A crucial consideration for funders is how this time-intensive and sensitive work should be factored into bid application templates and funding grants. Learnings from this article have potential to inform evidence-based guidance and training for researchers, consultees, funders, reviewers and ethics committees.

The past tense debate: is phonological complexity the key to the puzzle?

Theorists disagree over whether our language faculty is a single system or a dual one. Those supporting the latter position believe that English regular and irregular past tense verbs reflect this duality, with some proposing that each is processed by a rule mechanism and memorised lexicon respectively. Single system proponents believe instead that all verbs are processed by the same system, differing only in their degree of reliance on phonological and semantic representations. Regular past tense verbs involve greater phonological processing partly because they are phonologically more complex than irregulars. Early neuroimaging studies showing activation differences between the two have been taken as evidence for a dual system. However, it has been proposed recently that greater activation related to regular verb inflection was instead due to the failure to match regular and irregular verbs for phonological complexity (PC). Using a 2×3 ANOVA, the current event-related fMRI study tested this idea directly by manipulating regularity (regular, irregular) and PC (low, mid,and high) in 19 English-speaking monolingual participants. We found a main effect of PC, supporting the idea that phonological complexity cannot be ignored when considering differences between regular and irregular verbs. However we also found a main effect of regularity, demonstrating that differences over and above phonological complexity exist between the two types of verb. Even with phonological complexity matched, several regions including left inferior frontal gyrus and caudate were more activated for regular verb inflection. Temporal lobe regions and left hippocampus were among regions activated relatively more for irregular verb inflection. These latter findings suggest it may be premature to rule out a dual system account.

Practical and Clinical Approaches Using Pacing to Improve Selfregulation in Special Populations such as Children and People with Mental Health or Learning Disabilities.

For special populations such as people with a mental health issue or learning disability, a disconnect between the ability to accurately monitor and regulate exercise behaviour can lead to reduced levels of physical activity, which, in turn, is associated with additional physical or mental health problems. Activity pacing is a strategy used in clinical settings to address issues of pain amelioration, while self-pacing research is now well addressed in sport and exercise science literature. It has been proposed recently that these overlapping areas of investigation collectively support the development of self-regulatory, lifestyle exercise skills across broad population groups. Activity pacing appears to have substantial application in numerous development and rehabilitation settings and, therefore, the purpose of this short communication is to articulate how an activity pacing approach could be utilized among population groups in whom self-regulatory skills may require development. This paper provides specific examples of exercise practice across 2 discrete populations: children, and people with mental health and learning difficulties. In these cases, homeostatic regulatory processes may either be altered, or the individual may require extrinsic support to appropriately self-regulate exercise performance. A support-based exercise environment or approach such as programmatic activity (lifestyle) pacing would be beneficial to facilitate supervised and education-based self-regulation until such time as fully self-regulated exercise is feasible.

Neural correlates of syntax production in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: The production of grammatically complex sentences is impaired in schizophrenia. It has been suggested that impaired syntax processing reflects a risk for the disorder. AIMS: To examine the neural correlates of syntax production in people with schizophrenia using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). METHOD: Six patients with schizophrenia and six healthy volunteers spoke about seven Rorschach inkblots for 3 min each while correlates of brain activation were measured with fMRI. Participants produced varying amounts of syntactically simple and complex sentences during each 3 min run. The number of simple and complex sentences was correlated separately with the BOLD contrast. RESULTS: In the comparison between the control group and the patient group, the number of complex sentences produced was correlated with activation in the posterior portion of the right middle temporal (Brodmann area 21) and left superior frontal (BA10) gyriin the control group but not in the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of activation in the right posterior temporal and left superior frontal cortex in patients with schizophrenia might contribute to the articulation of grammatically more simple speech in people with this disorder.