Non‐speech oro‐motor exercises in post‐stroke dysarthria intervention: a randomized feasibility trial

Mackenzie, Catherine; Muir, Margaret; Allen, Carolyn; Jensen, Amy

doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12096

Cited by 27 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the ongoing debate regarding the precise role and efficacy of this approach (Mackenzie et al . , , Lof and Watson , Watson and Lof , Ziegler and Ackermann , Weismer ) it points to the importance of wider education and discussion (Maas ) in evidence based approaches in motor speech disorders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Miller

Bloch

2017

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Miller

Bloch

2017

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of NSOMEs in the management of non-progressive dysarthria has been investigated, with evidence from a randomized feasibility trial suggesting no additional benefit from including NSOMEs as part of a behavioral (speech-based) intervention for dysarthria (Mackenzie, Muir, Allen & Jensen, 2014). In spite of this, NSOMEs were used by 60.61% of respondents in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

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

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To identify management practices of Australian speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the treatment of non-progressive dysarthria using a subsystem approach, and to explore SLPs’ consideration and implementation of the theoretical underpinnings of non-progressive dysarthria management. Method: A 39-item online survey was distributed to Australian SLPs, with 80 responses suitable for data analysis. Results: Practices of SLPs were variable for the management of the speech subsystems. The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT®) was the most commonly used manualised treatment program, and was employed by 63.77% of respondents. Almost all SLPs (>88%) provided strategies to improve functional communication. There was no clear preference for low tech alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) devices. Speech generating devices were the most commonly employed high tech device. Almost two-thirds of respondents used non-speech oral motor exercises (NSOMEs) in treatment. SLPs had varied frequencies and models of service delivery for intervention. SLPs valued interventions targeting the activity and participation domains of the ICF, however this was restricted by the treatment context and resources available. The majority of SLPs (92.06%) were aware of the principles of motor learning, however many were unsure regarding the specifics of implementation. Conclusion: There is a clear need for further research into the efficacy of treatment techniques to guide decision-making.

show abstract

“…A Cochrane review found no trials [6], and a more recent update found that while five trials could be included these were considered low to very low in quality [7]. These more recent randomised controlled trials are inconclusive about which intervention for dysarthria rehabilitation is most effective [8–12]. Thus, further high-quality trials are needed to benefit people with dysarthria given the potential for depression, social exclusion, and worse quality of life [4, 5, 13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ReaDySpeech for people with dysarthria after stroke: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Mitchell¹,

Bowen

Tyson

et al. 2017

Pilot Feasibility Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDysarthria, a disordered speech production resulting from neuro-muscular impairment, is a common symptom after stroke. It causes significant problems for patients’ speech intelligibility, communication, psychological well-being, social engagement and stroke recovery. Rehabilitation for dysarthria is variable in quality, intensity and duration, which may be, in part, due to the lack of good quality evidence. An online therapy programme, ReaDySpeech, has the potential to improve quality, intensity and duration of speech rehabilitation and was considered in a proof-of-concept study to be acceptable to speech and language therapists and patients which warranted further evaluation. The present study aims to examine the feasibility of running a trial using the ReaDySpeech intervention.Methods/designA feasibility, randomised controlled trial, will recruit a minimum of 36 people with post-stroke dysarthria who are more than 1 week post stroke. Participants will be externally randomised in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ReaDySpeech and usual care (24 participants) or usual care only (12 participants). This study is single blind with the researcher carrying out the baseline and outcome measures while blinded to treatment allocation. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger Phase III trial. The specific objectives are to determine the following: recruitment rate and reasons for non-recruitment; loss of participants to follow-up; acceptability of randomisation; adherence to the intervention; delivery of ReaDySpeech and content; acceptability of outcome measures; success of blinding strategies; defining ‘usual’ care; and the implications of the intervention for the patient/family/carer.DiscussionThis study will involve a regional, multi-centre, randomised controlled feasibility trial of a complex intervention in order to evaluate whether a Phase III randomised controlled trial is feasible.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials, ISRCTN84996500 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40814-017-0169-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Non‐speech oro‐motor exercises in post‐stroke dysarthria intervention: a randomized feasibility trial

Cited by 27 publications

References 30 publications

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

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

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

ReaDySpeech for people with dysarthria after stroke: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About