A survey of speech–language therapy provision for people with post‐stroke dysarthria in the UK

Abstract

Through this research it became clear that basic information regarding post-stroke dysarthria incidence, prevalence and core demographics is currently unavailable. More embedded NHS SLT reporting systems would make a significant contribution to this area. A more in-depth examination is required of the natural history of dysarthria over the months and years following stroke, of SLT practices in relation to post-stroke dysarthria, with investigations to understand more fully the choices SLTs make and how this relates to available evidence to support their clinical decision-making.

A survey of speech-language pathology treatment for non-progressive dysarthria in Australia

“…Question skip logic was used to remove extraneous questions, based on participants' previous responses. The questions were designed to parallel other works (Conway & Walshe, 2015;Miller & Bloch, 2017). Specifically, the survey questions were developed through a review of literature that revealed the available management options and earlier international questionnaires (Conway & Walshe, 2015;Miller & Bloch, 2017).…”

“…In the study by Conway and Walshe (2015), only 70.30% of SLPs reported that they usually considered the principles of motor learning during intervention (Conway & Walshe, 2015). Furthermore, only a minority of participants in the UK agreed with the importance of regular intensive practice for rehabilitation (Miller & Bloch, 2017). A barrier to the implementation of these principles appears to be SLPs' awareness and ability to apply these principles to treatment (Conway & Walshe, 2015).…”

“…Furthermore, as the study investigated dysarthria post-stroke only, management practices for dysarthria secondary to other non-progressive conditions in the UK are unknown. In contrast to Conway and Walshe's (2015) study, Miller and Bloch (2017) did investigate the importance of treating at the level of activity and participation. The authors found that 99% of SLPs felt that addressing functional communication was important and that 97% agreed that intervention to allow participation in social events was important (Miller & Bloch, 2017).…”

“…In contrast to Conway and Walshe's (2015) study, Miller and Bloch (2017) did investigate the importance of treating at the level of activity and participation. The authors found that 99% of SLPs felt that addressing functional communication was important and that 97% agreed that intervention to allow participation in social events was important (Miller & Bloch, 2017). However, specific participation and functional communication interventions were not further investigated.…”

“…The secondary aims of this study included investigation of SLPs' consideration and implementation of the principles of motor learning, and SLPs' application of the ICF framework. Based on the previous international studies (Conway & Walshe, 2015;Miller & Bloch, 2017), it was hypothesized that management practices for non-progressive dysarthria would be variable and based on the clinical context and treatment resources available.…”