Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Background: Paediatric SLT roles often involve planning individualised intervention for specific children (provided directly by SLTs or indirectly through non-SLTs), working collaboratively with families and education staff and providing advice and training. A tiered approach to service delivery is currently recommended, whereby services become increasingly specialised and individualised for children with greater needs.  Aims: To examine 1) evidence of intervention effectiveness for children with language disorders at different tiers and 2) evidence regarding SLT roles; and to propose an evidence-based model of SLT service delivery.  Methods: Controlled, peer-reviewed studies, meta-analyses and systematic reviews of interventions for children with language disorders are reviewed and their outcomes discussed, alongside the differing roles SLTs play in these interventions. We indicate where gaps in the evidence base exist and present a possible model of service delivery consistent with current evidence, and a flowchart to aid clinical decision making.  Main Contribution: The service delivery model presented resembles the tiered model commonly used in education services, but divides individualised (Tier 3) services into Tier3A: indirect intervention delivered by non-SLTs, and Tier 3B: direct intervention by an SLT. We report the evidence for intervention effectiveness and which children might best be served by each tier, the role SLTs could take within each, and the evidence of effectiveness of these roles. Regarding universal interventions provided to all children (Tier 1) and those targeted at children with language weaknesses (Tier 2), there is growing evidence that approaches led by education services can be effective when staff are highly trained and well-supported. There is currently limited evidence regarding additional benefit of SLT-specific roles at Tiers 1 and 2. With regard to individualised intervention (Tier 3): children with complex or pervasive language disorders progress significantly following direct individualised intervention (Tier 3B), whereas children with milder or less pervasive difficulties can make progress when intervention is managed by an SLT, but delivered indirectly by others (Tier 3A), provided they are well-trained, -supported and -monitored.  Conclusions: SLTs have a contribution to make at all tiers, but where prioritisation for clinical services is a necessity, we need to establish the benefits and cost-effectiveness of each contribution. Good evidence exists for SLTs delivering direct individualised intervention, and we should ensure that this is available to those children with pervasive and/or complex language impairments. In cases where service models are being provided which lack evidence, we strongly recommend that SLTs investigate the effectiveness of their approaches

Evidence-based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Background  Paediatric speech and language therapist (SLT) roles often involve planning individualized intervention for specific children, working collaboratively with families and education staff, providing advice, training and coaching and raising awareness. A tiered approach to service delivery is currently recommended whereby services become increasingly specialized and individualized for children with greater needs.  Aims  To stimulate discussion regarding delivery of SLT services by examining evidence regarding the effectiveness of (1) intervention for children with language disorders at different tiers and (2) SLT roles within these tiers; and to propose an evidence‐based model of SLT service delivery and a flowchart to aid clinical decision‐making.  Methods & Procedures  Meta‐analyses and systematic reviews, together with controlled, peer‐reviewed group studies where recent systematic reviews were not available, of interventions for children with language disorders are discussed, alongside the differing roles SLTs play in these interventions. Gaps in the evidence base are highlighted.  Main Contribution  The service‐delivery model presented resembles the tiered model commonly used in education services, but divides individualized (Tier 3) services into Tier 3A: indirect intervention delivered by non‐SLTs, and Tier 3B: direct intervention by an SLT. We report evidence for intervention effectiveness, which children might best be served by each tier, the role SLTs could take within each tier and the effectiveness of these roles. Regarding universal interventions provided to all children (Tier 1) and those targeted at children with language weaknesses or vulnerabilities (Tier 2), there is growing evidence that approaches led by education services can be effective when staff are highly trained and well supported. There is currently limited evidence regarding additional benefit of SLT‐specific roles at Tiers 1 and 2. With regard to individualized intervention (Tier 3), children with complex or pervasive language disorders can progress following direct individualized intervention (Tier 3B), whereas children with milder or less pervasive difficulties can make progress when intervention is managed by an SLT, but delivered indirectly by others (Tier 3A), provided they are well trained and supported, and closely monitored.  Conclusions & Implications  SLTs have a contribution to make at all tiers, but where prioritization for clinical services is a necessity, we need to establish the relative benefits and cost‐effectiveness at each tier. Good evidence exists for SLTs delivering direct individualized intervention and we should ensure that this is available to children with pervasive and/or complex language disorders. In cases where service models are being provided which lack evidence, we strongly recommend that SLTs investigate the effectiveness of their approaches

Public health approaches still have room for individualized services: response to commentaries on 'Evidence-based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders'

First paragraph: We welcome these commentaries and an open discussion about SLT roles in improving the lives of children with language disorder. Our motivation comes in part from our lived experiences of situations like those above, where there is a perception from schools and indeed families (cf. Bercow 10 Years On) that the needs of children with language disorder are not being met. We focus our response on three key issues that arise from these thought-provoking comments

Development of the Observation Schedule for Children with Autism-Anxiety, Behaviour and Parenting (OSCA-ABP): A New Measure of Child and Parenting Behavior for Use with Young Autistic Children.

Co-occurring emotional and behavioral problems (EBPs) frequently exist in young autistic children. There is evidence based on parental report that parenting interventions reduce child EBPs. More objective measures of child EBPs should supplement parent reported outcomes in trials. We describe the development of a new measure of child and parenting behavior, the Observation Schedule for Children with Autism-Anxiety, Behaviour and Parenting (OSCA-ABP). Participants were 83 parents/carers and their 4-8-year-old autistic children. The measure demonstrated good variance and potential sensitivity to change. Child and parenting behavior were reliably coded among verbal and minimally verbal children. Associations between reports from other informants and observed behavior showed the measure had sufficient convergent validity. The measure has promise to contribute to research and clinical practice in autism mental health beyond objective measurement in trials

A novel group parenting intervention to reduce emotional and behavioural difficulties in young autistic children:protocol for the Autism Spectrum Treatment and Resilience pilot randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: The majority of young autistic children display impairing emotional and behavioural difficulties that contribute to family stress. There is some evidence that behavioural parenting interventions are effective for reducing behavioural difficulties in autistic children, with less evidence assessing change in emotional difficulties. Previous trials have tended to use unblinded parent-report measures as primary outcomes and many do not employ an active control, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Autism Spectrum Treatment and Resilience study is a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing the specific effect of a 12-week group parenting intervention (Predictive Parenting) on primary and secondary outcomes, in comparison to an attention control condition consisting of psychoeducation parent groups. Following a feasibility study to test research procedures and the interventions, the pilot RCT participants include 60 parents of autistic children aged 4-8 years who are randomised to Predictive Parenting versus the attention control. Measures are administered at baseline and post intervention to assess group differences in child and parent outcomes, costs and service use and adverse events. The primary outcome is an objective measure of child behaviours that challenge during interactions with their parent and a researcher. The trial aims to provide data on recruitment, retention, completion of measures and acceptability of the intervention and research protocol, in addition to providing a preliminary indication of potential efficacy and establishing an effect size that could be used to power a larger-scale efficacy trial. We will also provide preliminary estimates of the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted from NHS Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (ref: 16/LO/1769) along with NHS R&D approval from South London and Maudsley, Guy's and St Thomas', and Croydon Health Services NHS Trusts. The findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN91411078

Parent-mediated social communication therapy for young children with autism (PACT):long-term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundIt is not known whether early intervention can improve long-term autism symptom outcomes. We aimed to follow-up the Preschool Autism Communication Trial (PACT), to investigate whether the PACT intervention had a long-term effect on autism symptoms and continued effects on parent and child social interaction.MethodsPACT was a randomised controlled trial of a parent-mediated social communication intervention for children aged 2–4 years with core autism. Follow-up ascertainment was done at three specialised clinical services centres in the UK (London, Manchester, and Newcastle) at a median of 5·75 years (IQR 5·42–5·92) from the original trial endpoint. The main blinded outcomes were the comparative severity score (CSS) from the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), the Dyadic Communication Assessment Measure (DCMA) of the proportion of child initiatiations when interacting with the parent, and an expressive-receptive language composite. All analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. PACT is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN58133827.Findings121 (80%) of the 152 trial participants (59 [77%] of 77 assigned to PACT intervention vs 62 [83%] of 75 assigned to treatment as usual) were traced and consented to be assessed between July, 2013, and September, 2014. Mean age at follow-up was 10·5 years (SD 0·8). Group difference in favour of the PACT intervention based on ADOS CSS of log-odds effect size (ES) was 0·64 (95% CI 0·07 to 1·20) at treatment endpoint and ES 0·70 (95% CI −0·05 to 1·47) at follow-up, giving an overall reduction in symptom severity over the course of the whole trial and follow-up period (ES 0·55, 95% CI 0·14 to 0·91, p=0·004). Group difference in DCMA child initiations at follow-up showed a Cohen's d ES of 0·29 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.57) and was significant over the course of the study (ES 0·33, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·57, p=0·004). There were no group differences in the language composite at follow-up (ES 0·15, 95% CI −0·23 to 0·53).InterpretationThe results are the first to show long-term symptom reduction after a randomised controlled trial of early intervention in autism spectrum disorder. They support the clinical value of the PACT intervention and have implications for developmental theory.FundingMedical Research Council

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an adapted intervention for preschoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities displaying behaviours that challenge: the EPICC-ID RCT

BACKGROUND: Stepping Stones Triple P is an adapted intervention for parents of young children with developmental disabilities who display behaviours that challenge, aiming at teaching positive parenting techniques and promoting a positive parent-child relationship. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P in reducing behaviours that challenge in children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A parallel two-arm pragmatic multisite single-blind randomised controlled trial recruited a total of 261 dyads (parent and child). The children were aged 30-59 months and had moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Participants were randomised, using a 3 : 2 allocation ratio, into the intervention arm (Stepping Stones Triple P; n = 155) or treatment as usual arm (n = 106). Participants were recruited from four study sites in Blackpool, North and South London and Newcastle. INTERVENTION: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P consists of six group sessions and three individual phone or face-to-face contacts over 9 weeks. These were changed to remote sessions after 16 March 2020 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was the parent-reported Child Behaviour Checklist, which assesses the severity of behaviours that challenge. RESULTS: We found a small non-significant difference in the mean Child Behaviour Checklist scores (-4.23, 95% CI -9.98 to 1.52, p = 0.146) in the intervention arm compared to treatment as usual at 12 months. Per protocol and complier average causal effect sensitivity analyses, which took into consideration the number of sessions attended, showed the Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference at 12 months was lower in the intervention arm by -10.77 (95% CI -19.12 to -2.42, p = 0.014) and -11.53 (95% CI -26.97 to 3.91, p = 0.143), respectively. The Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference between participants who were recruited before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was estimated as -7.12 (95% CI -13.44 to -0.81) and 7.61 (95% CI -5.43 to 20.64), respectively (p = 0.046), suggesting that any effect pre-pandemic may have reversed during the pandemic. There were no differences in all secondary measures. Stepping Stones Triple P is probably value for money to deliver (-£1057.88; 95% CI -£3218.6 to -£46.67), but decisions to roll this out as an alternative to existing parenting interventions or treatment as usual may be dependent on policymaker willingness to invest in early interventions to reduce behaviours that challenge. Parents reported the intervention boosted their confidence and skills, and the group format enabled them to learn from others and benefit from peer support. There were 20 serious adverse events reported during the study, but none were associated with the intervention. LIMITATIONS: There were low attendance rates in the Stepping Stones Triple P arm, as well as the coronavirus disease 2019-related challenges with recruitment and delivery of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P did not reduce early onset behaviours that challenge in very young children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. However, there was an effect on child behaviours for those who received a sufficient dose of the intervention. There is a high probability of Stepping Stones Triple P being at least cost neutral and therefore worth considering as an early therapeutic option given the long-term consequences of behaviours that challenge on people and their social networks. FUTURE WORK: Further research should investigate the implementation of parenting groups for behaviours that challenge in this population, as well as the optimal mode of delivery to maximise engagement and subsequent outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as NCT03086876 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876?term=Hassiotis±Angela&draw=1&rank=1). FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: HTA 15/162/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information