口腔癌治疗后的言语和吞咽干预:澳大利亚和新西兰语言病理学家调查。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Katrina Blyth, Hannah Stainlay, Patricia McCabe
{"title":"口腔癌治疗后的言语和吞咽干预:澳大利亚和新西兰语言病理学家调查。","authors":"Katrina Blyth, Hannah Stainlay, 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":" ","pages":"652-662"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Speech and swallowing intervention following oral cancer treatment: A survey of speech-language pathologists in Australia and New Zealand.\",\"authors\":\"Katrina Blyth, Hannah Stainlay, 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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"652-662\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"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\":\"2023/9/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2023/9/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:口腔癌的治疗会对语言和吞咽能力产生削弱作用,然而,人们对目前的语言病理学实践知之甚少:通过向语言病理学部门、社交媒体平台和专业在线论坛发送电子邮件的方式,对语言病理学家(SLP)进行在线调查。调查问题包括人口统计学、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:在澳大利亚(41 人)和新西兰(2 人)工作的 43 名语言康复师完成了调查。语言康复师推荐语言和吞咽补偿策略的频率明显高于积极干预。吞咽效果的衡量标准要么是工具性的(n = 31,94%),要么是表现评分(n = 25,76%),而言语的衡量标准则是对可理解性的非正式判断(n = 30,91%)。语言康复师在决策时使用了一系列辅助工具,尤其是专家意见(81 人,占 38.2%)。他们表示,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:澳大利亚和新西兰的语言康复师在口腔癌患者的语言和吞咽康复方面存在差异。本研究强调了以证据为基础的指南的必要性,该指南概述了针对该人群的筛查流程、积极康复方案和有效结果测量的最佳实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Speech and swallowing intervention following oral cancer treatment: A survey of speech-language pathologists in Australia and New Zealand.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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.
×
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