Webcam Delivery of the Lidcombe Program for Preschool Children Who Stutter: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Abstract

Early intervention provides children who stutter with the best opportunity to avoid the lifelong complications associated with stuttering. Access to effective treatment, in particular, the Lidcombe Program, provides preschool children with the best chance to overcome their stuttering. Currently many children are unable to access such efficacious treatment due to distance and lifestyle factors. One solution to this problem is to deliver the treatment via webcam over the internet. This service delivery model was designed to increase access to timely, best-practice intervention for those who are currently unable to access treatment. That model was thought to be able to produce efficiency rates similar to those of traditional clinic treatment. Further, it provides a method of service delivery that: (1) improves access to evidence-based best-practice stuttering treatment for children, (2) improves access to specialist speech pathologists and quality services, (3) reduces costs and resources involved with outreach service provision, (4) provides more convenient home-based treatment for young children, and (5) ensures more equitable service delivery for rural and remote preschool children and their families. A Phase I study showed that webcam delivery of the Lidcombe Program was a viable treatment delivery model (O’Brian, Smith & Onslow, 2012). This thesis further investigates delivery of the Lidcombe Program for preschool children using the internet and a webcam. The modification in this project, compared to previous, low-tech telehealth (phone and mail) trials of the Lidcombe Program, allowed the principles of standard delivery of the Lidcombe Program to remain relatively unchanged. This was due primarily to the use of a webcam and live videoconferencing. The speech pathologist-parent-child triad was preserved, with all parties having clinic contact. Real-time measurements, observation and education for parent implementation of the program were also achieved through this medium. Thus, treatment could be delivered mostly in accordance with the program treatment guide (Packman et al., 2011, p. 1). The design for this project was a parallel, open plan, Phase III noninferiority randomised controlled trial (RCT). The control group received standard delivery of the Lidcombe Program (Packman, et al., 2011) in a traditional clinic setting. The experimental group received the Lidcombe Program within their homes using a computer, a webcam, the internet and a live video calling program (Skype). The primary outcome measures – the number of consultations and speech pathologist hours to attain entry into Stage 2 – evaluated treatment efficiency. The secondary outcomes – stuttering reduction as measured by parent evaluated severity ratings, investigated treatment efficacy, as did quantitative and qualitative data obtained from parent questionnaires. The number of weeks to attain Stage 2 entry was also measured. Initially, 66 children were assessed for this trial. Eleven were ineligible and six withdrew during the assessment process, with 49 participants being randomised. Of these, 24 were assigned to the control arm and 25 to the experimental arm. Due to time restrictions associated with the student’s candidature, not all 18-month data were collected in time for inclusion in this thesis. Pretreatment data are reported for all 49 participants. Data for all 43 participants active in the trial 9 months postrandomisation are also reported. Stage 2 entry data are available for the 35 participants (71% of the total cohort) who reached Stage 2 by December 31st 2012. Results for both groups showed no significant difference between the number of consultations and the number of weeks to Stage 2. Efficacy measures showed no significant difference between the groups in stuttering reduction. A further secondary outcome measure was parent responses to a questionnaire at entry into Stage 2. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two groups when asked about speech pathologist-child rapport, speech pathologist-parent rapport, ease of learning treatment, severity ratings and ability to adapt treatment. Further, two-thirds of clinic families said they would choose webcam treatment in the future. Webcam parents reported no difficulty in seeking out their own resources and did not feel treatment within their home was invasive. Webcam families listed convenience and comfort as the main advantages of webcam treatment, with technical difficulties as the main disadvantage. All webcam families would choose this same method for future stuttering treatment. The thesis concludes with a discussion of the speech pathologist’s role, consultation logistics and additional qualitative observations from the webcam group. These include convenience, treatment readiness, defining clinical space, trends in clinical transfer, clinical application, limitations and future directions. Overall, this thesis demonstrates that the findings from a Phase III RCT investigating the efficiency and efficacy of stuttering treatment for preschool support the use of webcam and internet to increase access to timely and appropriate stuttering intervention. The potential for community translation of these findings is considerable; children as young as 3 years of age can receive the same stuttering treatment within their homes as they would within a clinic; they can expect no difference in outcomes or experience. This is significant given that children as young as 2 years of age can be negatively affected by their stuttering. No longer do children who stutter need to be disadvantaged by where they live or by the skills of the closest speech pathologist. They can now access evidence-based treatment within their homes