Solent NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, University of West of England, Bristol, UK.
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2024 Jul-Aug;59(4):1517-1537. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.13016. Epub 2024 Jan 29.
Early language delay is exacerbated by social disadvantage. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self-perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. Methods used to achieve successful health outcomes in socially disadvantaged clinical populations may need enhancing.
To compare the impact of standard parent-based intervention (PBI) to enhanced PBI for young children with speech, language and communication needs (SCLN) and their families living in more socially disadvantaged populations.
A multicentre clustered blind randomised controlled trial was used to compare the effect of parent-based group interventions to improve early language development with children (mean age 27.5 months) from more socially disadvantaged populations with an expressive vocabulary of 40 or less single words. Intervention sessions were delivered by a speech and language therapist, over a 20-week period. Participants received one of two interventions: (1) Standard Care - indirect group PBI - (PBI) (2) Enhanced Care: indirect group enhanced PBI - (EPBI). Both standardised and non-standardised measures were used as outcomes. Parent engagement in the intervention was captured through analysis of attendance and the Parent Activation Measure - Speech & Language Therapy (PAM-SLT) (Insignia Health, 2014). The PAM measures a person's knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their own health and well-being (NHS England, 2018). In this study, activation referred to parents' knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their child's language development.
One hundred fifty-five participants were randomised at baseline. Children in both groups made significant improvements in the outcome on MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories Sentence Length, from pre-intervention to post-intervention and 6 months post-intervention (p < 0.05). Changes in vocabulary and expressive language skills were more equivocal, showing wide variation in confidence intervals for both groups. Where parents attended at least one intervention session almost all effect sizes were in favour of the EPBI intervention. Parents' activation levels significantly increased for both groups (EPBI p < 0.001, PBI p = 0.003), with a moderate effect size in favour of EPBI (Hedges' G 0.37, confidence interval -0.02 to 0.76), although wide variation was found.
This trial provides some evidence of facilitating the language development of children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting caregivers. However, we found variation in outcomes; some children made excellent progress, whilst others did not. Further exploration of parent engagement and its relationship to child language outcomes will be valuable to understanding more about mechanisms of change in interventions that involve parents.
What is already known on the subject Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) have a knock-on effect on emotional well-being, school readiness, literacy and school attainment, putting children at increased risk of long-term consequences such as poor literacy, mental health problems and unemployment. In disadvantaged areas, the prevalence of language difficulties is higher than elsewhere. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self-perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas can make improvements in their language development through parent intervention, although wide individual variation was found. There was some evidence that children achieve better outcomes with EPBI, which employed an interagency collaborative approach. Parent's engagement (activation levels) increased significantly over time with intervention, with the increase twice as big for EPBI. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This trial provides some evidence that it is possible to facilitate the language development of children from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting their caregivers. Further research would be useful to determine whether increases in parent engagement are related to adherence to intervention and change in child outcomes.
社会劣势会加剧早期语言迟缓。父母文化程度低、自信心和自我认知等因素会影响他们接受建议并采取行动的能力,这对赋权至关重要。在社会劣势临床人群中实现健康结果的方法可能需要改进。
比较标准基于父母的干预(PBI)与增强型 PBI 对来自社会劣势环境的有言语、语言和沟通需求(SCLN)的幼儿及其家庭的影响。
使用多中心聚类盲随机对照试验比较了两种干预措施对改善来自社会劣势地区、表达词汇量为 40 个或更少单词的幼儿早期语言发展的影响。干预课程由言语和语言治疗师在 20 周内提供。参与者接受以下两种干预之一:(1)标准护理-间接团体 PBI-(PBI)(2)增强护理:间接团体增强 PBI-(EPBI)。使用标准化和非标准化测量作为结果。通过分析出勤率和家长激活量表-言语和语言治疗(PAM-SLT)(Insignia Health,2014)来捕捉家长对干预的参与度。PAM 衡量一个人管理自己的健康和福祉的知识、技能和信心(NHS 英格兰,2018)。在这项研究中,激活是指父母管理孩子语言发展的知识、技能和信心。
155 名参与者在基线时随机分组。两组儿童在 MacArthur-Bates 交际发展量表句子长度上的干预后和 6 个月后的结果都有显著改善(p<0.05)。词汇量和表达性语言技能的变化更加不确定,两组的置信区间差异很大。如果父母至少参加了一次干预课程,那么几乎所有的效果大小都有利于 EPBI 干预。两组家长的激活水平都显著提高(EPBI p<0.001,PBI p=0.003),EPBI 有中等效果大小(Hedges'G 0.37,置信区间-0.02 至 0.76),尽管存在很大差异。
这项试验提供了一些证据,表明通过支持照顾者,可以促进来自社会劣势地区的有 SCLN 儿童的语言发展。然而,我们发现结果存在差异;一些儿童取得了优异的进步,而另一些儿童则没有。进一步探讨家长的参与度及其与儿童语言结果的关系,将有助于了解涉及家长的干预措施的变化机制。
言语、语言和沟通需求(SCLN)会对情绪健康、入学准备、读写能力和学业成绩产生连锁反应,使儿童面临长期后果的风险增加,如阅读能力差、心理健康问题和失业。在劣势地区,语言困难的患病率高于其他地区。父母文化程度低、自信心和自我认知等因素会影响他们接受建议并采取行动的能力,这对赋权至关重要。
来自社会劣势地区的有 SCLN 的儿童可以通过家长干预来改善他们的语言发展,尽管发现了广泛的个体差异。有证据表明,采用机构间合作方法的 EPBI 可以使儿童获得更好的结果。随着时间的推移,家长的参与度(激活水平)显著增加,EPBI 的增加幅度是 PBI 的两倍。
这项试验提供了一些证据,表明通过支持照顾者,可以促进来自社会劣势地区的儿童的语言发展。进一步的研究将有助于确定家长参与度的增加是否与对干预的依从性和儿童结果的变化有关。