How acceptable is the use of linguistic–phonological intervention in children with cleft palate? A qualitative study in speech therapists

Abstract

AbstractBackground & AimsEven though evidence for the use of linguistic–phonological intervention approaches in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L) is still limited, these approaches are being used by speech–language pathologists (SLPs) to treat active or compensatory cleft speech disorders in clinical practice. It is, however, unknown to what extent linguistic–phonological intervention is acceptable to SLPs. The aim of this study is to investigate the retrospective acceptability of linguistic–phonological intervention in children with a CP±L from the perspective of SLPs using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA).Methods & ProceduresA total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 63 years, were included in the study. An independent interviewer conducted semi‐structured interviews. Data were analysed using a deductive coding approach. Statements of the SLPs were related to the seven constructs of the TFA: affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness and self‐efficacy.Outcomes & ResultsThe affective attitude and perceived effectiveness of linguistic–phonological intervention differed among the SLPs: some therapists had positive attitudes towards these approaches, while others did not. Positive attitudes were related to the successful use of linguistic–phonological intervention in the past. The construct ‘ethicality’ revealed that negative attitudes towards these approaches were attributed to the limited available scientific evidence or negative experiences while using these approaches. In contrast, SLPs who had positive attitudes considered these interventions as ‘important’ and ‘valuable’. Some SLPs had negative reflections on linguistic–phonological intervention as these approaches were considered demanding in terms of time needed to gain knowledge on using them in children with a CP±L (constructs ‘burden’ and ‘opportunity costs’). Additionally, some SLPs doubted their self‐efficacy to use these approaches in clinical practice.Conclusions & ImplicationsThe acceptability of linguistic–phonological intervention differed between the SLPs in this sample and was most likely related to their previous experiences with these linguistic–phonological approaches. It is important to increase not only the amount of scientific evidence for linguistic–phonological approaches but also the supply of evidence‐based workshops and training courses on this topic. These initiatives should distribute scientific information that is translated into guidelines that are immediately applicable in clinical practice. This may potentially reduce the time‐related burden that some SLPs currently experience to gain expertise in this matter. In future research, it is necessary to investigate if there exist differences in acceptability between the different types of linguistic–phonological therapy.What This Paper AddsWhat is already known on this subjectLinguistic–phonological speech intervention approaches are often used by SLPs to treat active or compensatory cleft speech disorders in clinical practice.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study investigated whether linguistic–phonological intervention cleft speech intervention is acceptable to SLPs. Some therapists had positive attitudes towards these approaches, while others did not. Positive attitudes were related to the successful use of these approaches in the past. If SLPs indicated having negative attitudes, these negative feelings were attributed to the limited available scientific evidence or negative experiences while using these approaches.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this workEven though linguistic–phonological speech intervention approaches are being used in clinical practice, these approaches are not always considered acceptable by SLPs. Acceptability could be enhanced by increasing the amount of scientific evidence for linguistic–phonological approaches, but also by increasing the supply of workshops and training courses on this topic. These initiatives should distribute hands‐on information that is immediately applicable in clinical practice. This may potentially reduce the time‐related burden that some SLPs currently experience to gain expertise in this matter.