Parental involvement is a crucial force in children’s development, learning and success at school and in life [1]. Participation, defined by the World Health Organization as ‘a person’s involvement in life situations’ [2] for children means involvement in everyday activities, such as recreational, leisure, school and household activities [3]. Several authors use the term social participation emphasising the importance of engagement in social situations [4, 5]. Children’s participation in daily life is vital for healthy development, social and physical competencies, social-emotional well-being, sense of meaning and purpose in life [6]. Through participation in different social contexts, children gather the knowledge and skills needed to interact, play, work, and live with other people [4, 7, 8]. Unfortunately, research shows that children with a physical disability are at risk of lower participation in everyday activities [9]; they participate less frequently in almost all activities compared with children without physical disabilities [10, 11], have fewer friends and often feel socially isolated [12-14]. Parents, in particular, positively influence the participation of their children with a physical disability at school, at home and in the community [15]. They undertake many actions to improve their child’s participation in daily life [15, 16]. However, little information is available about what parents of children with a physical disability do to enable their child’s participation, what they come across and what kind of needs they have. The overall aim of this thesis was to investigate parents’ actions, challenges, and needs while enhancing the participation of their school-aged child with a physical disability. In order to achieve this aim, two steps have been made. In the first step, the literature has been examined to explore the topic of this thesis (actions, challenges and needs) and to clarify definitions for the concepts of participation and social participation. Second, for the purposes of giving breadth and depth of understanding of the topic of this thesis a mixed methods approach using three different empirical research methods [17-19], was applied to gather information from parents regarding their actions, challenges and needs.
BackgroundInterprofessional collaborative practices (IPCP) are considered to be a crucial factor in the optimal support of young children (3–6 years) with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) in inclusive early childhood education and care (ECEC).AimsTo investigate IPCP in interventions using a collaborative approach for young children with SLCN in ECEC, by identifying mechanisms within IPCP and how these mechanisms relate to specific context factors and professional and child-related outcomes.MethodsA realist review of 22 empirical intervention studies, published between 1994 and 2019, was conducted to synthesise context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations, combining context factors, IPCP mechanisms and outcomes at staff and child level.Main ContributionReciprocal IPCP mechanisms were reported together with interprofessional intervention practices, whereas one-directional IPCP mechanisms were restricted to gains in professional development. Our review further suggests that collective ownership of intervention goals, combined with personal cooperation and communication skills of staff, is vital for inclusive practices and functional communication of children with SLCN.ConclusionOur review has revealed indications for effective IPCP mechanisms, context factors at staff level, and positive outcomes for the professional development of staff working with children with SLCN. In addition, our findings support a link between IPCP and child-related outcomes regarding speech, language and communication development. Future studies should increase our insight into how practitioners, children and families profit from daily collaborative practices.WHAT THIS PAPER ADDSWhat is already known on this subjectInterventions using a collaborative approach for young children (3-6 years) with SLCN in ECEC are considered to be part of the optimal support of these children.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeConducting a realist review of 22 empirical studies on collaborative intervention offered the possibility to identify specific context factors, IPCP mechanisms and professional and child-related outcomes and to synthesise CMO configuations. Findings suggest multiple routes from effective delivery of SLCN services to improvement of speech, language and communication development, supporting the suggested beneficial function of collaboration between multiple professions. Collective ownership of intervention goals, combined with personal cooperation and communication skills of staff, seems to be vital for inclusive practices and functional communication of children with SLCN. Reciprocal IPCP mechanisms were reported together with interprofessional intervention practices, whereas one-directional IPCP mechanisms were restricted to gains in professional development.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?High-quality collaborative intervention for children with SLCN in requires awareness of and critical reflection on IPCP mechanisms in order to improve outcomes for both professionals and children. Both, institutional structural support and individual communicative and cooperative skills are required to increase interprofessional collaboration with the aim to meet the needs of every individual child with SLCN.
Purpose: Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. Method: A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. Results: The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs’ lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. Conclusions: A training in performing LSA did not resolve the time investment barrier experienced by SLPs. User-friendly software, developed in codesign with SLPs might provide a solution. For the short-term, shorter samples, preferably from narrative tasks, should be considered.
