Only behavioral but not self-report measures of speech perception correlate with cognitive abilities

Good speech perception and communication skills in everyday life are crucial for participation and well-being, and are therefore an overarching aim of auditory rehabilitation. Both behavioral and self-report measures can be used to assess these skills. However, correlations between behavioral and self-report speech perception measures are often low. One possible explanation is that there is a mismatch between the specific situations used in the assessment of these skills in each method, and a more careful matching across situations might improve consistency of results. The role that cognition plays in specific speech situations may also be important for understanding communication, as speech perception tests vary in their cognitive demands. In this study, the role of executive function, working memory (WM) and attention in behavioral and self-report measures of speech perception was investigated. Thirty existing hearing aid users with mild-to-moderate hearing loss aged between 50 and 74 years completed a behavioral test battery with speech perception tests ranging from phoneme discrimination in modulated noise (easy) to words in multi-talker babble (medium) and keyword perception in a carrier sentence against a distractor voice (difficult). In addition, a self-report measure of aided communication, residual disability from the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile, was obtained. Correlations between speech perception tests and self-report measures were higher when specific speech situations across both were matched. Cognition correlated with behavioral speech perception test results but not with self-report. Only the most difficult speech perception test, keyword perception in a carrier sentence with a competing distractor voice, engaged executive functions in addition to WM. In conclusion, any relationship between behavioral and self-report speech perception is not mediated by a shared correlation with cognition

The wrong side of the tracks: Starting school in a socially disadvantaged London borough

Substantial evidence exists that social circumstances can affect children’s language development. As a result many children in socially deprived areas start school with delayed language, which may persist and adversely affect their attainment. We assessed the language of children in seven reception classes in a London (UK) borough and followed the progress of children with English as their first language (E1L) and with English as an additional language (EAL) during their first 2 years at school. Significant differences were found between schools. The effect of social factors on performance was reflected in a high correlation between the mean language score for each school and the percentage of children in the school receiving the pupil premium. Many of the children with EAL had very low scores reflecting their limited exposure to English prior to starting school. Most of these children attended schools where children with E1L also had low scores increasing the demands on the schools and their teachers. Children who had low initial scores made modest but significant progress during their reception year but failed to improve further during year 1 despite having non-verbal ability appropriate for their age. These results support previous findings that social deprivation can seriously delay language development, and that many children start school with weak communication skills. They add to previous findings by showing that the level of delay may differ substantially across schools in the same borough, by reporting data on children with EAL and by showing that children struggle to improve their abilities in the first 2 years of school

Identification of recruitment and retention strategies for rehabilitation professionals in Ontario, Canada: results from expert panels

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Demand for rehabilitation services is expected to increase due to factors such as an aging population, workforce pressures, rise in chronic and complex multi-system disorders, advances in technology, and changes in interprofessional health service delivery models. However, health human resource (HHR) strategies for Canadian rehabilitation professionals are lagging behind other professional groups such as physicians and nurses. The objectives of this study were: 1) to identify recruitment and retention strategies of rehabilitation professionals including occupational therapists, physical therapists and speech language pathologists from the literature; and 2) to investigate both the importance and feasibility of the identified strategies using expert panels amongst HHR and education experts.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A review of the literature was conducted to identify recruitment and retention strategies for rehabilitation professionals. Two expert panels, one on <it>Recruitment and Retention </it>and the other on <it>Education </it>were convened to determine the importance and feasibility of the identified strategies. A modified-delphi process was used to gain consensus and to rate the identified strategies along these two dimensions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 34 strategies were identified by the <it>Recruitment and Retention </it>and <it>Education </it>expert panels as being important and feasible for the development of a HHR plan for recruitment and retention of rehabilitation professionals. Seven were categorized under the <it>Quality of Worklife and Work Environment </it>theme, another seven in <it>Financial Incentives and Marketing</it>, two in <it>Workload and Skill Mix</it>, thirteen in <it>Professional Development </it>and five in <it>Education and Training</it>.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on the results from the expert panels, the three major areas of focus for HHR planning in the rehabilitation sector should include strategies addressing <it>Quality of Worklife and Work Environment</it>, <it>Financial Incentives and Marketing </it>and <it>Professional Development</it>.</p

Challenge Demcare: management of challenging behaviour in dementia at home and in care homes:Development, evaluation and implementation of an online individualised intervention for care homes; and a cohort study of specialist community mental health care for families

Background: Dementia with challenging behaviour (CB) causes significant distress for caregivers and the person with dementia. It is associated with breakdown of care at home and disruption in care homes. Challenge Demcare aimed to assist care home staff and mental health practitioners who support families at home to respond effectively to CB. Objectives: To study the management of CB in care homes (ResCare) and in family care (FamCare). Following a conceptual overview, two systematic reviews and scrutiny of clinical guidelines, we (1) developed and tested a computerised intervention; (2) conducted a cluster randomised trial (CRT) of the intervention for dementia with CB in care homes; (3) conducted a process evaluation of implementation of the intervention; and (4) conducted a longitudinal observational cohort study of the management of people with dementia with CB living at home, and their carers. Review methods: Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials; systematic meta-ethnographic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Design: ResCare – survey, CRT, process evaluation and stakeholder consultations. FamCare – survey, longitudinal cohort study, participatory development design process and stakeholder consultations. Comparative examination of baseline levels of CB in the ResCare trial and the FamCare study participants. Settings: ResCare – 63 care homes in Yorkshire. FamCare – 33 community mental health teams for older people (CMHTsOP) in seven NHS organisations across England. Participants: ResCare – 2386 residents and 861 staff screened for eligibility; 555 residents with dementia and CB; 277 ‘other’ residents; 632 care staff; and 92 staff champions. FamCare – every new referral (n = 5360) reviewed for eligibility; 157 patients with dementia and CB, with their carer; and 26 mental health practitioners. Stakeholder consultations – initial workshops with 83 practitioners and managers from participating organisations; and 70 additional stakeholders using eight group discussions and nine individual interviews. Intervention: An online application for case-specific action plans to reduce CB in dementia, consisting of e-learning and bespoke decision support care home and family care e-tools. Main outcome measures: ResCare – survey with the Challenging Behaviour Scale; measurement of CB with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and medications taken from prescriptions; implementation with thematic views from participants and stakeholders. FamCare – case identification from all referrals to CMHTsOP; measurement of CB with the Revised Memory and Behaviour Problems Checklist and NPI; medications taken from prescriptions; and thematic views from stakeholders. Costs of care calculated for both settings. Comparison of the ResCare trial and FamCare study participants used the NPI, Clinical Dementia Rating and prescribed medications. Results: ResCare – training with group discussion and decision support for individualised interventions did not change practice enough to have an impact on CB in dementia. Worksite e-learning opportunities were not readily taken up by care home staff. Smaller homes with a less hierarchical management appear more ready than others to engage in innovation. FamCare – home-dwelling people with dementia and CB are referred to specialist NHS services, but treatment over 6 months, averaging nine contacts per family, had no overall impact on CB. Over 60% of people with CB had mild dementia. Families bear the majority of the care costs of dementia with CB. A care gap in the delivery of post-diagnostic help for families supporting relatives with dementia and significant CB at home has emerged. Higher levels of CB were recorded in family settings; and prescribing practices were suboptimal in both care home and family settings. Limitations: Functionality of the software was unreliable, resulting in delays. This compromised the feasibility studies and undermined delivery of the intervention in care homes. A planned FamCare CRT could not proceed because of insufficient referrals. Conclusions: A Cochrane review of individualised functional analysis-based interventions suggests that these show promise, although delivery requires a trained dementia care workforce. Like many staff training interventions, our interactive e-learning course was well received by staff when delivered in groups with facilitated discussion. Our e-learning and decision support e-tool intervention in care homes, in its current form, without ongoing review of implementation of recommended action plans, is not effective at reducing CB when compared with usual care. This may also be true for staff training in general. A shift in priorities from early diagnosis to early recognition of dementia with clinically significant CB could bridge the emerging gap and inequities of care to families. Formalised service improvements in the NHS, to co-ordinate such interventions, may stimulate better opportunities for practice models and pathways. Separate services for care homes and family care may enhance the efficiency of delivery and the quality of research on implementation into routine care. Future work: There is scope for extending functional analysis-based interventions with communication and interaction training for carers. Our clinical workbooks, video material of real-life episodes of CB and process evaluation tool resources require further testing. There is an urgent need for evaluation of interventions for home-dwelling people with dementia with clinically significant CB, delivered by trained dementia practitioners. Realist evaluation designs may illuminate how the intervention might work, and for whom, within varying service contexts