Baker Elise
The University of Sydney, Australia.
Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012 Oct;14(5):478-85. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2012.717967.
This article is the final response in a scientific forum on the optimal intensity of intervention in speech-language pathology. It is a reflection on the state of knowledge offered by the 13 commentaries in this issue, addressing the areas of early communication and language impairment, speech sound disorders in children, emergent literacy, reading, aphasia, dysphagia, stuttering, motor speech disorders, voice disorders, and traumatic brain injury. Although more intense intervention can lead to better outcomes, the relationship between intensity and outcome is not always linear. More is not always better. Non-intense and intense schedules can yield similar outcomes. Intensity can also reach a point of diminishing return. The insights offered by the authors illustrate the challenges involved in studying this complex issue. To establish the optimal intensity of interventions in speech-language pathology our field needs to: identify active ingredients of interventions; better understand how principles of motor learning and neural plasticity facilitate learning; appreciate the contribution of individuals characteristics, values, and preferences; discover the effect of specific combinations of intensity (including dose, dose form, dose frequency, session duration, and total intervention duration) on treatment outcomes, and find practical solutions when disparities exist between research recommendations and workplace limitations.
本文是关于言语病理学最佳干预强度科学论坛的最终回应。它是对本期13篇评论所提供知识状况的思考,涉及早期沟通与语言障碍、儿童语音障碍、早期读写能力、阅读、失语症、吞咽困难、口吃、运动性言语障碍、嗓音障碍和创伤性脑损伤等领域。虽然更强的干预可能会带来更好的结果,但强度与结果之间的关系并不总是线性的。更多并不总是更好。非高强度和高强度的干预方案可能会产生相似的结果。强度也可能达到收益递减的程度。作者们提供的见解说明了研究这个复杂问题所涉及的挑战。为了确定言语病理学干预的最佳强度,我们这个领域需要:确定干预的有效成分;更好地理解运动学习和神经可塑性原理如何促进学习;认识个体特征、价值观和偏好的作用;发现强度的特定组合(包括剂量、剂型、给药频率、疗程时长和总干预时长)对治疗结果的影响,并在研究建议与工作场所限制存在差异时找到切实可行的解决方案。