Background: Collaboration between parents and speech and language therapists (SLTs) is seen as a key element in family-centred models. Collaboration can have positive impacts on parental and children’s outcomes. However, collaborative practice has not been well described and researched in speech and language therapy for children and may not be easy to achieve. It is important that we gain a deeper understanding of collaborative practice with parents, how it can be achieved and how it can impact on outcomes. This understanding could support practitioners in daily practice with regard to achieving collaborative practice with parents in different contexts. Aims: To set a research agenda on collaborative practice between parents and SLTs in order to generate evidence regarding what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent. Methods & Procedures: A realist evaluation approach was used to make explicit what collaborative practice with parents entails. The steps suggested by the RAMESES II project were used to draft a preliminary programme theory about collaborative practice between parents and SLTs. This process generates explicit hypotheses which form a potential research agenda. Discussion & Conclusions: A preliminary programme theory of collaborative practice with parents was drafted using a realist approach. Potential contextual factors (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) were presented which could be configured into causal mechanisms to help explain what works for whom in what circumstances. CMO configurations were drafted, based on the relevant literature, which serve as exemplars to illustrate how this methodology could be used. In order to debate, test and expand our hypothesized programme theory for collaborative practice with parents, further testing against a broader literature is required alongside research to explore the functionality of the configurations across contexts. This paper highlights the importance of further research on collaborative practice with parents and the potential value of realist evaluation methodology
BackgroundSeveral conditions and diseases can result in speech problems that can have a negative impact on everyday functioning, referred to as communicative participation. Subjective problems with acquired speech problems are often assessed with the speech handicap index (SHI). To assess generic participation problems, the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation–Participation (USER-P) questionnaire is frequently used. The English questionnaire Communicative Participation Item Bank—short form (CPIB short form) is a 10-item valid, reliable instrument that assesses communicative participation. In the absence of a Dutch equivalent, translation and validation of the CPIB short form was required.AimsTo translate the CPIB short form into Dutch, and to determine its psychometric properties for the group of adults with speech problems resulting from a neurological aetiology or head and neck cancer.Methods & ProceduresTranslation of the CPIB short form was performed following the instructions of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC). In a cross-sectional multi-centre study, participants completed the Dutch CPIB short form together with the SHI and USER-P, and the CPIB a second time after 2 weeks. We assessed internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the CPIB. Construct validity was assessed based on correlations with SHI, USER-P and speech assessments.Outcomes & ResultsIn the validation study, 122 participants were included: 51 with dysarthria due to different neurological disorders, 48 with speech problems due to head and neck cancer treatment and 23 healthy controls. Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.962), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for test–retest reliability was high 0.908 (95% CI = 0.870–0.935). Construct validity was supported by a strong correlation between the Dutch CPIB short form and the SHI total score (SHI total rs = 0.887) and a moderate correlation between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the USER-P subscales (USER-P Frequency rs = 0.365; USER-P restrictions and USER-P satisfaction rs = 0.546). A moderate correlation was found between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the speech performance assessments (degree of distortedness r = −0.0557; p ≤ 0.001; degree of intelligibility r = 0.0562).Conclusions & ImplicationsThe Dutch CPIB short form provides a valid and reliable tool for clinical practice and research purposes. It allows clinicians to start using this PROM in clinical and research practice to systematically investigate the impact of the speech problems on communicative participation in a Dutch-speaking population.What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectCommunicative participation allows people to take part in life situations, but can be affected by acquired speech problems. The CPIB is a patient-reported outcome measure for the assessment of this concept. For the English language the 46-item bank and a 10-item short form is available.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis paper describes the process of translation of the CPIB short form into Dutch, and confirms its reproducibility and validity.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?With this validated Dutch version of the CPIB short form available, professionals can implement this tool in clinical and research practice to systematically evaluate communicative participation.
Background: Patient Reported Experience Measures are promoted to be used as an integrated measurement approach in which outcomes are used to improve individual care (micro level), organisational quality (meso level) and external justification (macro level). However, a deeper understanding of implementation issues of these measures is necessary. The narrative Patient Reported Experience Measure “Dit vind ik ervan!” (English “How I feel about it!”) is used in the Dutch disability care sector, but insight into its’ current use is lacking. We aimed to provide insight into experiences with the implementation and current ways of working with “Dit vind ik ervan!” as an integrated measurement strategy. A descriptive qualitative study was done at a disability care organisation. Data were collected by nine documentations, seven observations, 11 interviews and three focus groups. We applied deductive content analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as a framework. Results: Our analysis revealed facilitators and barriers for the implementation of “Dit vind ik ervan!”. We found most barriers at the micro level. Professionals and clients appreciated the measure’s narrative approach, but struggled to perform it with communication vulnerable clients. Some clients, professionals and team leaders were unfamiliar with the measure’s aim and benefit. On the meso level, implementation was done top-down, and the management’s vision using the measure as an integrated measurement approach was insufficiently shared throughout the organisation. Conclusions: Our study shows that Patient Reported Experience Measures have the potential to be used as an integrated measurement strategy. Yet, we found barriers at the micro level, which might have influenced using the measurement outcomes at the meso and macro level. Tailored implementation strategies, mostly focusing on designing and preparing the implementation on themicro level, need to be developed in co-creation with all stakeholders.
communicative participation, language disordersOBJECTIVE(S)/RESEARCH QUESTION(S) Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are the primary care professionals to treat language and communication disorders. Their treatment is informed by a variety of outcome measures. At present, diagnosis, monitoring of progress and evaluation are often based on performance-based and clinician-reported outcomes such as results of standardized speech, language, voice, or communication tests. These tests typically aim to capture how well the person can produce or understand language in a controlled situation, and therefore only provide limited insight in the person’s challenges in life. Performance measures do not incorporate the unobservable feelings such as a patient's effort, social embarrassment, difficulty, or confidence in communication. Nor do they address language and communication difficulties experienced by the person themselves, the impact on daily life or allow patients to set goals related to their own needs and wishes. The aim of our study is give our patients a voice and empower SLTs to incorporate their patient's perspective in planning therapy. We will Aangemaakt door ProjectNet / Generated by ProjectNet: 08-12-2020 12:072Subsidieaanvraag_digitaal / Grant Application_digitaalDossier nummer / Dossier number: 80-86900-98-041DEFINITIEFdevelop a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure that provides information on communicative participation of people with communication disorders and integrate this item bank in patient specific goal setting in speech and language therapy. Both the item bank and the goal setting method will be adapted in cocreation with patients to enable access for people with communication difficulties.STUDY DESIGN Mixed methods research design following the MRC guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions, using PROMIS methodology including psychometric evaluation and an iterative user-centered design with qualitative co-creation methods to develop accessible items and the goal setting method.RESEARCH POPULATION Children, adolescents and adults with speech, language, hearing, and voice disorders.OUTCOME MEASURES An online patient-reported outcome measure on communicative participation, the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), CPIB items that are accessible for people with language understanding difficulties, a communicative-participation person-specific goal setting method developed with speech and language therapists and patients and tested on usability and feasibility in clinical practice, and a course for SLTs explaining the use of the goal-setting method in their clinical reasoning process.RELEVANCE This study answers one of the prioritized questions in the call for SLTs to systematically and reliably incorporate the clients’ perspective in their daily practice to improve the quality of SLT services. At present patient reported outcomes play only a small role in speech and language therapy because 1) measures (PROMS) are often invalid, not implemented and unsuitable for clinical practice and 2) there is a knowledge gap in how to capture and interpret outcomes from persons with language disorders.
