What works, how and in which contexts when supporting parents to implement intensive speech and language therapy at home for children with speech sound disorder? A protocol for a realist review

Lists

Tools

Leafe, N., Pagnamenta, E. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4703-3163, Taggart, L., Donnelly, M., Hassiotis, A. and Titterington, J. (2023) What works, how and in which contexts when supporting parents to implement intensive speech and language therapy at home for children with speech sound disorder? A protocol for a realist review. BMJ Open. ISSN 2044-6055 (In Press)

Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.
315kB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Abstract/Summary

Introduction Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) worldwide report challenges with providing recommended, evidence-based intervention intensity for children with speech sound disorder (SSD). Challenges such as service constraints and/or family contexts impact on access to optimal therapy intensity. Existing research indicates that empowering and training parents to deliver intervention at home, alongside SLT support, offers one possible solution to increasing the intensity of intervention children with SSD receive. Digital health could increase accessibility to intensive home-practise and help sustain engagement with therapy activities. Further exploration is needed around what makes parent-implemented interventions for children with speech sound disorder effective, for who, in which situations. This paper outlines the protocol for a realist review which aims to explore the active ingredients and contextual factors of effective digital parent-led interventions. Methods and analysis A realist review will explore the research question, following six stages. The scope of the review will be determined, and initial programme theories will be developed about what works in digital parent-implemented interventions for SSD, for whom, how, why, and in what circumstances. Relevant secondary data, identified through a formal search strategy, will be selected, appraised, analysed, and synthesised using realist principles to test and further refine the initial programme theories. This process will develop refined underpinning explanatory theories which capture the interaction between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes of the intervention. An expert steering group will provide insight to inform explanatory theories, searches, and dissemination. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this review. The refined programme theories from the review will inform the next stages of a wider study. A subsequent realist evaluation will test and further refine theories with key stakeholders. Following this, the underpinning programme theory will be used to co-produce a digital tool, to support parents to deliver home-intervention alongside SLT support

Item Type:	Article
Refereed:	Yes
Divisions:	Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Clinical Language Sciences
ID Code:	113915
Publisher:	BMJ Group

Deposit Details

References

REFERENCES 1. McLeod S, Crowe K, Masso S, et al. Profile of Australian preschool children with speech sound disorders at risk for literacy difficulties. Aust J Learn Difficulties [Internet]. 2017;22(1):15–33. doi: 10.1080/19404158.2017.1287105 2. Broomfield J, Dodd B. Children with speech and language disability: Caseload characteristics. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2004;39(3):303–24. 3. Wren Y, Harding S, Goldbart J, et al. A systematic review and classification of interventions for speech-sound disorder in preschool children. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2018;53(3):446–67. 4. Eadie P, Morgan A, Ukoumunne OC, et al. Speech sound disorder at 4 years: Prevalence, comorbidities, and predictors in a community cohort of children. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2015 Jun;57(6):578-84. 5. Jessup B, Ward E, Cahill L, et al. Prevalence of speech and/or language impairment in preparatory students in northern Tasmania. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2008 Jan 1;10(5):364-77. 6. Law J, Boyle J, Harris F, et al. Prevalence and natural history of primary speech and language delay: Findings from a systematic review of the literature. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2000;35(2):165–88. 7. Joffe V, Pring T. Children with phonological problems: A survey of clinical practice. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008;43(2):154–64. 8. Mcleod S, Baker E. Speech-language pathologists’ practices regarding assessment, analysis, target selection, intervention, and service delivery for children with speech sound disorders. Clin Linguist Phonetics. 2014;28(7–8):508–31. 9. Sugden E, Baker E, Munro N, et al. Involvement of parents in intervention for childhood speech sound disorders: a review of the evidence. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2016;51(6):597–625. 10. Wren Y, Pagnamenta E, Peters TJ, et al. Educational outcomes associated with persistent speech disorder. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2021;56(2):299–312. 11. Wren Y, Pagnamenta E, Orchard F, et al. Social, emotional and behavioural difficulties associated with persistent speech disorder in children: A prospective population study. JCPP Advances. 2023:e12126. 12. Yasmin T, Hafeez H, Sadia A, et al. Working memory span and receptive vocabulary assessment in Urdu speaking children with speech sound disorder. Acta Psychologica. 2022;1(231):1-8 13. McCurtin A, Clifford AM. 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. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015;21(6):1178–89. 14. Hegarty N, Titterington J, McLeod S, et al. Intervention for children with phonological impairment: Knowledge, practices and intervention intensity in the UK. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2018;53(5):995–1006. 15. Sugden E, Baker E, Munro N, et al. An Australian survey of parent involvement in intervention for childhood speech sound disorders. Int J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2018;20(7):766–78. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2017.1356936 16. Baker E, McLeod S. Evidence-Based Practice for Children with Speech Sound Disorders: Part 1 Narrative Review. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch [Internet]. 2011 Apr;42(2):102–39. doi:10.1044/0161-1461%282010/09-0075%29 17. McLeod S, Baker E. Children's speech: An evidence-based approach to assessment and intervention. 2017. 18. Baker E. Optimal intervention intensity. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012;14(5):401–9. 19. Sugden E, Baker E, Munro N, et al. Service delivery and intervention intensity for phonology-based speech sound disorders. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2018;53(4):718–34. 20. Warren SF, Fey ME, Yoder PJ. Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev [Internet]. 2007;13(1):70–7. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20139 21. Kaipa R, Peterson AM. A systematic review of treatment intensity in speech disorders. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016;18(6):507–20. 22. Williams AL. Intensity in phonological intervention: Is there a prescribed amount? Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012;14(5):456–61. 23. Allen MM. Intervention efficacy and intensity for children with speech sound disorder. J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2013;56(3):865–77. 24. McCormack J, Baker E, Masso S, et al. Implementation fidelity of a computer-assisted intervention for children with speech sound disorders. Int J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2017;19(3):265. doi:10.1080/17549507.2017.1293160 25. Hegarty N, Titterington J, Taggart L. A qualitative exploration of speech-language pathologists’ intervention and intensity provision for children with phonological impairment. Int J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2020;23(2):213–24. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2020.1769728 26. Furlong L, Serry T, Erickson S, et al. Processes and challenges in clinical decision-making for children with speech-sound disorders. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2018;53(6):1124–38. 27. McFaul H, Mulgrew L, Smyth J, et al. Applying evidence to practice by increasing intensity of intervention for children with severe speech sound disorder: a quality improvement project. BMJ open Qual. 2022;11(2). 28. Hegarty N, Titterington J, McLeod S, et al. SuSSD: supporting and understanding speech sound disorder. Ulster University [Internet]. 2018. https://www.ulster.ac.uk/research/topic/nursing-and-health/ caring-for-people-with-complex-needs/research-themes/ neurodevelopmental/ssd 29. Lawler K, Taylor NF, Shields N. Outcomes after caregiver-provided speech and language or other allied health therapy: A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2013;94(6):1139–60. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.11.022 30. Law J, Garrett Z, Nye C. Speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary speech and language delay or disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2003 Jul 21;2015(5). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004110 31. Sugden E, Baker E, Williams AL, et al. Evaluation of Parent- and Speech-Language Pathologist–Delivered Multiple Oppositions Intervention for Children With Phonological Impairment: A Multiple-Baseline Design Study. Am J Speech-Language Pathol [Internet]. 2020 Feb 7;29(1):111–26. doi: 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0248 32. Sweeney T, Hegarty F, Powell K, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing Parent Led Therapist Supervised Articulation Therapy (PLAT) with routine intervention for children with speech disorders associated with cleft palate. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2020;55(5):639–60. 33. Watts Pappas N, McAllister L, McLeod S. Parental beliefs and experiences regarding involvement in intervention for their child with speech sound disorder. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2016;32(2):223–39. 34. NIHR Evidence: What is digital health technology and what can it do for me? [online] September 2022; doi: 10.3310/nihrevidence_53447 35. Lin Y, Lemos M, Neuschaefer-Rube C. Digital health and digital learning experiences across speech-language pathology, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology: interdisciplinary survey study. JMIR Medical Education. 2021 Nov 5;7(4):e30873. 36. Mathews SC, McShea MJ, Hanley CL, et al. Digital health: a path to validation. NPJ digital medicine. 2019 May 13;2(1):38. 37. ORCHA. How do digital health standards assess evidence? [Internet]. ORCHA. 2021. Available from: https://orchahealth.com/how-do-digital-health-standards-assess-evidence/ 38. Hall CM, Bierman KL. Technology-assisted interventions for parents of young children: Emerging practices, current research, and future directions. Early childhood research quarterly. 2015 Oct 1;33:21-32. 39. Snodgrass MR, Chung MY, Biller MF, et al. Telepractice in speech–language therapy: The use of online technologies for parent training and coaching. Communication Disorders Quarterly. 2017 Aug;38(4):242-54. 40. McGill N, McLeod S. Aspirations for a website to support families’ active waiting for speech-language pathology. Int J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2019;21(3):263–74. Available from: doi: 10.1080/17549507.2019.1604802 41. Ahmed B, Monroe P, Hair A, et al. Speech-driven mobile games for speech therapy: User experiences and feasibility. Int J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2018;20(6):644–58. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2018.1513562 42. Hair A, Ballard KJ, Markoulli C, et al. A Longitudinal Evaluation of Tablet-Based Child Speech Therapy with Apraxia World. ACM Trans Access Comput. 2021;14(1):1–26. 43. Law J, Dornstauder M, Charlton J, et al. Tele-practice for children and young people with communication disabilities: Employing the COM-B model to review the intervention literature and inform guidance for practitioners. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2021;56(2):415–34. 44. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ [Internet]. 2021;374(2018):n2061. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34593508 45. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med [Internet]. 2013 Dec 29;11(1):21. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-21 46. Pawson R. Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: SAGE Publications, Limited; 2006. 47. Hunter R, Gorely T, Beattie M, et al. Realist review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol [Internet]. 2022 Jan 18;0(0):1–24. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2021.1969674 48. Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. Silverback Publishing; 2014. 49. Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7:37. 50. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–18. 51. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al. Realist synthesis-an introduction. ESRC Research Methods Programme. University of Manchester. 2004. 52. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):1–11. 53. Jagosh J, Pluye P, Macaulay AC, et al. Assessing the outcomes of participatory research: Protocol for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesizing the literature for realist review. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):1–8. 54. Luetsch K, Rowett D, Twigg MJ. A realist synthesis of pharmacist-conducted medication reviews in primary care after leaving hospital: What works for whom and why? BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30(5):418–30. 55. Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT): User guide [Internet]. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada. 2018. p. 1–11. Available from: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf%0Ahttp://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/ 56. Tate RL, Perdices M, Rosenkoetter U, et al. The Single-Case Reporting Guideline in BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: Explanation and elaboration. Arch Sci Psychol. 2016;4(1):10–31. 57. Harniess P, Gibbs D, Basu A, et al. Optimising parental engagement in early intervention physical therapy for infants with cerebral palsy - a realist synthesis. Vol. 107, Physiotherapy. 2020. 68–69 p. 58. van Hees SGM, Carlier BE, Blonk RWB, et al. Understanding work participation among employees with common mental disorders: What works, for whom, under what circumstances and how? A systematic realist review protocol. Work [Internet]. 2021 Jul 16;69(3):827–38. doi: 10.3233/WOR-213515 59. Jagosh J. Retroductive theorizing in Pawson and Tilley’s applied scientific realism. J Crit Realis [Internet]. 2020;19(2):121–30. doi: 10.1080/14767430.2020.1723301 60. Pawson R. The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. Sage; 2013 61. Maidment I, Booth A, Mullan J, et al. Developing a framework for a novel multi-disciplinary, multi-agency intervention(s), to improve medication management in community-dwelling older people on complex medication regimens (MEMORABLE)––a realist synthesis. Syst Rev [Internet]. 2017 Dec 3;6(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0528-1

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

University of Reading

CentAUR: Central Archive at the University of Reading

Accessibility navigation

What works, how and in which contexts when supporting parents to implement intensive speech and language therapy at home for children with speech sound disorder? A protocol for a realist review

Abstract/Summary

Page navigation

See also

Footer navigation