Speech and swallowing intervention following oral cancer treatment: A survey of speech-language pathologists in Australia and New Zealand.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Katrina Blyth, Hannah Stainlay, Patricia McCabe
{"title":"Speech and swallowing intervention following oral cancer treatment: A survey of speech-language pathologists in Australia and New Zealand.","authors":"Katrina Blyth,&nbsp;Hannah Stainlay,&nbsp;Patricia McCabe","doi":"10.1080/17549507.2023.2240043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Treatment for oral cancer has debilitating effects on speech and swallowing, however, little is known about current speech-language pathology practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An online survey of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) was disseminated via emails to speech pathology departments, social media platforms, and professional online forums. Survey questions captured demographics, service delivery, type and timing of speech and swallowing interventions, and influences and barriers to practice.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Forty-three SLPs working in Australia (<i>n</i> = 41) and New Zealand (<i>n</i> = 2) completed the survey. SLPs recommended speech and swallowing compensatory strategies significantly more frequently than active intervention. Swallowing outcomes measures were either instrumental (<i>n</i> = 31, 94%) or performance ratings (<i>n</i> = 25, 76%), whereas speech was measured informally with judgements of intelligibility (<i>n</i> = 30, 91%). SLPs used a range of supports for their decision making, particularly expert opinion (<i>n</i> = 81, 38.2%). They reported time and staffing limitations (<i>n</i> = 55, 55%) and a lack of relevant evidence (<i>n</i> = 35, 35%) as the largest barriers to evidence-based service delivery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is variability amongst SLPs in Australia and New Zealand regarding rehabilitation of speech and swallowing for people with oral cancer. This study highlights the need for evidence-based guidelines outlining best practice for screening processes, active rehabilitation protocols, and valid outcome measures with this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":49047,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2023.2240043","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Treatment for oral cancer has debilitating effects on speech and swallowing, however, little is known about current speech-language pathology practice.

Method: An online survey of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) was disseminated via emails to speech pathology departments, social media platforms, and professional online forums. Survey questions captured demographics, service delivery, type and timing of speech and swallowing interventions, and influences and barriers to practice.

Result: Forty-three SLPs working in Australia (n = 41) and New Zealand (n = 2) completed the survey. SLPs recommended speech and swallowing compensatory strategies significantly more frequently than active intervention. Swallowing outcomes measures were either instrumental (n = 31, 94%) or performance ratings (n = 25, 76%), whereas speech was measured informally with judgements of intelligibility (n = 30, 91%). SLPs used a range of supports for their decision making, particularly expert opinion (n = 81, 38.2%). They reported time and staffing limitations (n = 55, 55%) and a lack of relevant evidence (n = 35, 35%) as the largest barriers to evidence-based service delivery.

Conclusion: There is variability amongst SLPs in Australia and New Zealand regarding rehabilitation of speech and swallowing for people with oral cancer. This study highlights the need for evidence-based guidelines outlining best practice for screening processes, active rehabilitation protocols, and valid outcome measures with this population.

口腔癌治疗后的言语和吞咽干预:对澳大利亚和新西兰言语语言病理学家的调查。
目的:口腔癌的治疗对语言和吞咽有削弱作用,然而,目前对语言病理实践知之甚少。方法:通过电子邮件向语言病理学院系、社交媒体平台和专业网络论坛发放语言病理学家在线调查问卷。调查问题包括人口统计、服务提供、言语和吞咽干预的类型和时间,以及对实践的影响和障碍。结果:在澳大利亚(n = 41)和新西兰(n = 2)工作的43名slp完成了调查。slp推荐言语和吞咽补偿策略的频率明显高于主动干预。吞咽结果测量要么是工具性的(n = 31, 94%),要么是表现评分(n = 25, 76%),而言语则是非正式的,通过可理解性判断来测量(n = 30, 91%)。slp使用一系列支持他们的决策,特别是专家意见(n = 81, 38.2%)。他们报告说,时间和人员限制(n = 55,55%)以及缺乏相关证据(n = 35,35%)是提供循证服务的最大障碍。结论:澳大利亚和新西兰的slp在口腔癌患者的语言和吞咽康复方面存在差异。本研究强调需要循证指南,概述筛查过程的最佳实践,积极的康复方案,以及有效的结果测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
73
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is an international journal which promotes discussion on a broad range of current clinical and theoretical issues. Submissions may include experimental, review and theoretical discussion papers, with studies from either quantitative and/or qualitative frameworks. Articles may relate to any area of child or adult communication or dysphagia, furthering knowledge on issues related to etiology, assessment, diagnosis, intervention, or theoretical frameworks. Articles can be accompanied by supplementary audio and video files that will be uploaded to the journal’s website. Special issues on contemporary topics are published at least once a year. A scientific forum is included in many issues, where a topic is debated by invited international experts.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信