Five-year longitudinal treatment outcomes of the ISTAR Comprehensive Stuttering Program

Langevin, Marilyn; Kully, Deborah; Teshima, Shelli; Hagler, Paul; Prasad, Narasimha

doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2010.04.002

Cited by 52 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Comprehensive Stuttering Program (CSP) for adolescents and adults was evaluated in six papers, 41,61,[71][72][73][74] with all but one of these from a research team in Canada. This intervention incorporates speech motor techniques with cognitive strategies to have an impact on emotional and attitudinal aspects in addition to speech fluency.…”

Section: Results Of the Effectiveness Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One paper reports long-term outcomes in Canada, 74 another considers predictors of outcomes in the Netherlands 61 and the third compares the findings across Canadian and Dutch populations. 73 Langevin et al 74 present 5-year follow-up data from 18 adults following treatment with CSP (including some participants that were reported in the 1993 and 2006 studies). Since the earlier study, 72 eight individuals had attended refresher sessions and 10 had not.…”

Section: Results Of the Effectiveness Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 18 Franklin et al 2008 (quasi-RCT), 19 Hancock and Craig 1998 (quasi-RCT), 20 Hancock et al 1998 (quasi-RCT), 21 Harris et al 2002 (quasi-RCT), 22 Hewat et al 2006 (quasi-RCT), 23 Jones et al 2005, 24 Jones et al 2008, 25 Lattermann et al 2008, 26 Lewis et al 2008, 27 Menzies et al 2008, 28 Onslow et al 1994 29 (controlled before and after) Before and after (reported pre-intervention and post-intervention data with no comparator group) (86) Amster and Klein 2007, 30 Andrews et al 65 Kaya and Alladin 2012, 66 Kaya 2011, 67 Kingston et al 2003, 68 Koushik et al 2009, 69 Laiho and Klippi 2007, 70 Langevin and Boberg 1993, 71 Langevin and Boberg 1996, 72 Langevin et al 2006, 73 Langevin et al 2010, 74 Lawson et al 1993, 75 Leahy and Collins 1991, 76 Lincoln et al 1996, 77 Lutz 2009, 78 Mallard 1998, 79 Millard et al 87 Onslow et al 1990, 88 Onslow et al 1992, 89 Onslow et al 1996, 90 Pape-Neumann 2004, 91 Pollard et al 2009, 92 Reddy et al 2010, 93 Riley and Ingham 2000, 94 Rosenberger et al Cross-sectional (data from a single time point only) (11) Allen 2011, …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 42 Bray and James 2009, 43 Hewat et al 2006, 23 Langevin and Boberg 1996, 72 Leahy and Collins 1991 76 Onslow et al 1990, 88 Onslow et al 73 Langevin et al 2010, 74 Nilsen and Ramberg 1999, 83 Onslow et al 1992, 89 Onslow et al …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These papers reported effectiveness in terms of p-values or ESs rather than percentage change. 24,[30][31][32]37,48,51,73,74,82,91,104,106,116 In the 'feedback and technology' group, an ES of 0.14 was reported for stuttering (during monologue only) in one paper, 119 and an ES of 1.1 for reduction of stuttering frequency in another 48 and statistically significant changes were reported in nine papers. 4,35,52,56,92,118,120,124,125 In the 'cognitive' group, an ES of 0.74 for reduction in stuttering was found in one study 30 and three papers reported statistically significant differences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Non-pharmacological treatments for stuttering in children and adults: a systematic review and evaluation of clinical effectiveness, and exploration of barriers to successful outcomes

Baxter

Johnson

Blank

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite many years of research, there is no certainty regarding the cause of stuttering. Although numerous interventions have been developed, a broad-based systematic review across all forms of intervention for adults and children was needed including views and perceptions of people who stutter.ObjectiveThe aims of the study were to report the clinical effectiveness of interventions for people who stutter (or clutter), to examine evidence regarding the views of people who stutter and the views of professionals regarding interventions.Data sourcesA systematic review of quantitative and qualitative literature was carried out between August 2013 and April 2014. The following electronic databases were searched: (1) MEDLINE, (2) EMBASE, (3) The Cochrane Library (including The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database and NHS Economic Evaluations Database), (4) PsycINFO, (5) Science Citation Index, (6) Social Science Citation Index, (7) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, (8) ASSIA, (9) Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, (10) Sociological Abstracts and (11) the EPPI Centre. Reference lists of included papers and other reviews were screened and also key journals in the subject area were hand-searched.Review methodsThe searches aimed to identify (1) evidence of clinical effectiveness in populations of pre-school children, school-aged children, adolescents and adults, and (2) data relating to perceptions of barriers and facilitators to intervention clinical effectiveness among staff and people who stutter. A metasynthesis of the two linked elements via development of a conceptual model was also carried out to provide further interpretation of the review findings.ResultsA systematic search of the literature identified a large number of potentially relevant studies. Of these, 111 studies examining the clinical effectiveness of interventions, 25 qualitative papers and one mixed-methods paper met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Review of the effectiveness literature indicated evidence of positive outcomes across all types of interventions. Virtually all evidence we identified reported at least some positive effect for some participants. However, there was evidence of considerable individual variation in outcome for study participants. The qualitative literature highlighted the need for programmes to be tailored to individual need with variation at the levels of the intervention, the individual and interpersonal/social elements. Metasynthesis of the data highlighted the complexity of elements that need to be considered in evaluation of long-term impacts following stuttering interventions.LimitationsAround two-thirds of the studies were considered to be at higher risk of bias. The heterogeneous nature and variability in outcomes meant that we were unable to complete a meta-analysis.ConclusionsAlthough much of the evidence we identified was from studies at risk of bias, it is suggested that most available interventions for stuttering may be of benefit to at least some people who stutter. There is a requirement for greater clarity regarding what the core outcomes following stuttering intervention should be and also enhanced understanding of the process whereby interventions effect change. Further analysis of those for whom interventions have not produced a significant benefit may provide additional insights into the complex intervention–outcomes pathway.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004861.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

Section: Results Of the Effectiveness Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%