Economic evaluation of the Happy Talk pilot effectiveness trial: A targeted selective speech, language and communication intervention for children from areas of social disadvantage.

Purpose: This study presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of a targeted selective pre-school intervention programme, "Happy Talk", which focuses on language development, by simultaneously enhancing parental interaction and the pre-school environment.Method: Happy Talk (delivered to 77 children) is an add on intervention, and is compared to usual care, adopting a healthcare perspective. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out using the Pre-school Language Scale 5- Total (PLS-5) for baseline analysis and the Child Health Utility Instrument (CHU9D) in a secondary analysis.Result: Baseline cost-effectiveness analysis showed Happy Talk was more effective (6.3 point change in total PLS-5 standard score - effect size 0.463SD and more expensive (€82.06) than usual care (cost-effectiveness ratio is €13.02 per unit change). Employing a proxy to estimate monetary net benefit, the benefits outweigh the costs, showing that it is cost-effective. However, results do not persist when health-related quality of life outcome measures are considered.Conclusion: Findings suggest a targeted selective public health approach, could be considered value for money to reduce the societal burden of children with low levels of speech, language and communication. However, measurement of longer term outcomes and a larger trial are required, to definitively inform policy changes.

Happy Talk: A pilot effectiveness study of a targeted-selective speech-language and communication intervention for children from areas of social disadvantage.

BACKGROUND: Despite the public health implications of language difficulties associated with social disadvantage, there is a dearth of effectiveness studies investigating the effects of targeted speech and language programmes in this area. AIMS: To determine the effects of a targeted selective community-based child language intervention programme (Happy Talk), which simultaneously engaged with parents and early childhood educators, in the Republic of Ireland. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A mixed methods methodology was applied with quantitative outcome and qualitative process data collected. Effectiveness was examined using a quasi-experimental single blind study design comparing Happy Talk with 'usual care' across four preschools. Qualitative process data were also gathered to examine the acceptability and feasibility of the Happy Talk approach in practice, and to identify factors to improve the probability of successful wider implementation. Child language (PLS-5) and quality-of-life measures were administered pre- and immediately post- the 11-week intervention. Responsiveness was assessed as the parental outcome, and the oral language environment of preschools was measured using the Communication Supporting Classroom Observation Tool (CSCOT). Retrospective acceptability was analysed with reference to the theoretical framework of acceptability (v 2). OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Pre-/post-expressive and composite language scores were collected for 58 children, and receptive scores for 54 children. Multiple linear regression revealed significant intervention effects for comprehension and total language with large and moderate effect sizes, respectively (0.60 and 0.46 SD). No significant effect was shown for parental responsiveness. No effects were found for the preschool environment or children's quality of life. Preschool staff deemed the programme to be an acceptable method of enhancing children's speech and language skills and rated the intervention positively. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The Happy Talk pilot effectiveness trial shows that comprehension can be improved (with a large effect) in preschool children from areas of social disadvantage, following an 11-week intervention, in which parents and preschool staff are simultaneously engaged. The ecological validity of the programme, as well as feasibility and acceptability to staff, make it a suitable programme to be delivered at scale. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Up to 50% of children from socially disadvantaged areas enter preschool with speech and language difficulties. The majority of intervention studies are (1) researcher led; (2) efficacy trials carried out in ideal conditions; and (3) focus on working with parents or early childhood educators rather than engaging with both groups simultaneously. Many studies omit child language outcomes, and those that include them tend to show relatively modest effects for expressive language and negligible effects for receptive language. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This pilot study shows that the Happy Talk programme, which is embedded in the community and which simultaneously engages with parents and early childhood educators, is highly effective in improving children's receptive language skills. These findings are particularly important in the context of (1) the study taking place in real world conditions; and (2) the programme being designed and refined by speech and language therapy services, rather than one which is researcher led. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Implementing an 11-week targeted selective community-based language intervention can result in a large positive effect on receptive language for children from areas of social disadvantage. The study findings highlight the importance of embedding intervention programmes in the community and of simultaneously engaging with parents and preschool staff.

Expressive and receptive language skills in preschool children from a socially disadvantaged area.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that children present with receptive language skills that are equivalent to or more advanced than expressive language skills. This profile holds true for typical and delayed language development. This study aimed to determine if such a profile existed for preschool children from an area of social deprivation and to investigate if particular language skills influence any differences found between expressive and receptive skills. METHOD: Data from 187 CELF P2 UK assessments conducted on preschool children from two socially disadvantaged areas in a city in southern Ireland. RESULT: A significant difference was found between Receptive Language Index (RLI) and Expressive Language Index (ELI) scores with Receptive scores found to be lower than Expressive scores. The majority (78.6%) of participants had a lower Receptive Language than Expressive score (RLI < ELI), 18.2% of participants had a higher Receptive score than score (RLI > ELI), with very few (3.2%) having the same Receptive and Expressive scores (RLI = ELI). Scores for the Concepts and Following Directions (receptive) sub-test were significantly lower than for the other receptive sub tests, while scores for the Expressive Vocabulary sub-test were significantly higher than for the other expressive sub tests. CONCLUSION: The finding of more advanced expressive than receptive language skills in socially deprived preschool children is previously unreported and clinically relevant for speech-language pathologists in identifying the needs of this population.