Interventions for children and adolescents who stutter: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence map

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Journal of Fluency Disorders Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2021.105843
Amanda Brignell , Michelle Krahe , Martin Downes , Elaina Kefalianos , Sheena Reilly , Angela Morgan
{"title":"Interventions for children and adolescents who stutter: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence map","authors":"Amanda Brignell ,&nbsp;Michelle Krahe ,&nbsp;Martin Downes ,&nbsp;Elaina Kefalianos ,&nbsp;Sheena Reilly ,&nbsp;Angela Morgan","doi":"10.1016/j.jfludis.2021.105843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This systematic review critically appraises and maps the evidence for stuttering interventions in childhood and adolescence. We examine the effectiveness of speech-focused treatments, the efficacy of alternative treatment delivery methods and identify gaps in the research evidence.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Nine electronic databases and three clinical trial registries were searched for systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and studies that applied an intervention with children (2–18 years) who stutter. Pharmacological interventions were excluded. Primary outcomes were a measure of stuttering severity and quality assessments were conducted on all included studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eight RCTs met inclusion criteria and were analysed. Intervention approaches included direct (i.e. Lidcombe Program; LP) and indirect treatments (e.g. Demands and Capacities Model; DCM). All studies had moderate risk of bias. Treatment delivery methods included individual face-to-face, telehealth and group-based therapy. Both LP and DCM approaches were effective in reducing stuttering in preschool aged children. LP had the highest level of evidence (pooled effect size=-3.8, CI -7.3 to -0.3 for LP). There was no high-level evidence for interventions with school-aged children or adolescents. Alternative methods of delivery were as effective as individual face-to-face intervention.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The findings of this systematic review and evidence mapping are useful for clinicians, researchers and service providers seeking to understand the existing research to support the advancement of interventions for children and adolescence who stutter. Findings could be used to inform further research and support clinical decision-making.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","volume":"70 ","pages":"Article 105843"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jfludis.2021.105843","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X2100022X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Purpose

This systematic review critically appraises and maps the evidence for stuttering interventions in childhood and adolescence. We examine the effectiveness of speech-focused treatments, the efficacy of alternative treatment delivery methods and identify gaps in the research evidence.

Methods

Nine electronic databases and three clinical trial registries were searched for systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and studies that applied an intervention with children (2–18 years) who stutter. Pharmacological interventions were excluded. Primary outcomes were a measure of stuttering severity and quality assessments were conducted on all included studies.

Results

Eight RCTs met inclusion criteria and were analysed. Intervention approaches included direct (i.e. Lidcombe Program; LP) and indirect treatments (e.g. Demands and Capacities Model; DCM). All studies had moderate risk of bias. Treatment delivery methods included individual face-to-face, telehealth and group-based therapy. Both LP and DCM approaches were effective in reducing stuttering in preschool aged children. LP had the highest level of evidence (pooled effect size=-3.8, CI -7.3 to -0.3 for LP). There was no high-level evidence for interventions with school-aged children or adolescents. Alternative methods of delivery were as effective as individual face-to-face intervention.

Conclusion

The findings of this systematic review and evidence mapping are useful for clinicians, researchers and service providers seeking to understand the existing research to support the advancement of interventions for children and adolescence who stutter. Findings could be used to inform further research and support clinical decision-making.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对口吃儿童和青少年的干预措施:系统回顾、荟萃分析和证据图
目的:本系统综述批判性地评价和绘制了儿童和青少年口吃干预的证据。我们检查了以语言为中心的治疗的有效性,替代治疗方法的有效性,并确定研究证据中的差距。方法检索9个电子数据库和3个临床试验注册库,检索系统评价、随机对照试验(RCTs)和对2-18岁口吃儿童进行干预的研究。排除了药物干预。主要结果是衡量口吃严重程度,并对所有纳入的研究进行质量评估。结果8项rct符合纳入标准并进行分析。干预方法包括直接(即利德库姆计划;LP)和间接处理(如需求和能力模型;DCM)。所有研究均有中等偏倚风险。提供治疗的方法包括个人面对面、远程保健和团体治疗。LP和DCM两种方法均能有效减少学龄前儿童的口吃。LP具有最高水平的证据(合并效应大小=-3.8,LP的CI为-7.3至-0.3)。对学龄儿童或青少年进行干预没有高水平的证据。替代的交付方法与个人面对面干预一样有效。结论本系统综述和证据图谱的发现有助于临床医生、研究人员和服务提供者了解现有研究,以支持对儿童和青少年口吃的干预措施的推进。研究结果可用于进一步研究和支持临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Fluency Disorders
Journal of Fluency Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Fluency Disorders provides comprehensive coverage of clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects of stuttering, including the latest remediation techniques. As the official journal of the International Fluency Association, the journal features full-length research and clinical reports; methodological, theoretical and philosophical articles; reviews; short communications and much more – all readily accessible and tailored to the needs of the professional.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Stuttering severity and social anxiety among adults who stutter: A multilevel analysis Corrigendum to “Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing eficit?", [Journal of Fluency Disorders, 67 (2021) 105827] Editorial Board A theory building critical realist evaluation of an integrated cognitive-behavioural fluency enhancing stuttering treatment for school-age children. Part 1: Development of a preliminary program theory from expert speech-language pathologist data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1