The retrospective acceptability of high intensity versus low intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft palate: A qualitative study from the parents' point of view using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

BACKGROUND: Increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness of high-intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L). It is, however, unknown if high-intensity intervention is acceptable to the intervention recipients. Parents have an integral role in supporting their children with intervention highlighting the importance of intervention acceptability to parents. AIMS: To compare the retrospective acceptability of high-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hr speech therapy sessions divided over 2 weeks) with the retrospective acceptability of low-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hr speech therapy sessions divided over 10 weeks) for children with a CP±L from the parents' point of view. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Twelve parents of 12 children, aged 6-0 years who received high-intensity speech intervention (n = 6) or low-intensity speech intervention (n = 6), were invited to participate in this study. Seven parents (n = 3 in the high-intensity group and n = 4 in the low-intensity group) agreed to participate (total response rate: 7/12, 58.33%). A qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews was applied. To investigate the retrospective acceptability of the two intervention intensities, deductive coding according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was used. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: With regard to the TFA construct 'affective attitude', results demonstrated that parents had positive feelings about the provided speech intervention regardless of the intensity. Parents of children who received high-intensity speech intervention reported two specific benefits related to the high intervention intensity: (1) it improved their relationship with the speech-language pathologist and (2) it improved their child's ability to make self-corrections in his/her speech. Even though both high-intensive and low-intensity speech intervention were considered burdensome (TFA construct 'burden'), parents were less likely to drop out of high-intensity intervention because the total intervention period was kept short. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: In conclusion, high-intensity speech intervention seemed acceptable to parents. More positive codes were identified for some of the TFA constructs in the high-intensity intervention group than in the low-intensity intervention group. Considering that some parents doubted their self-efficacy to participate in high-intensity speech intervention, speech-language pathologists need to counsel them so that they can adhere to the high intervention intensity. Future studies should investigate whether high-intensity speech intervention is also acceptable to the children who receive the intervention and to the speech-language pathologists who deliver the intervention. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Increasing attention is paid to the effectiveness of high-intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L). Different quantitative studies have shown positive speech outcomes after high-intensity cleft speech intervention. Despite this increasing attention to high-intensity speech intervention, it is unknown whether high-intensity intervention is also acceptable to the intervention recipients. This study compared the retrospective acceptability of high-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hour speech therapy sessions divided over 2 weeks) with the retrospective acceptability of low-intensity speech intervention (10 1-hour speech therapy sessions divided over 10 weeks) in children with a CP±L from the parents' point of view. What this paper adds to existing knowledge More positive codes were identified for some of the TFA constructs in the high-intensity intervention group than in the low-intensity intervention group. Nevertheless, some parents doubted their self-efficacy to participate in high-intensity speech intervention. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The findings of this study forces us to reconsider the traditional cleft speech intervention delivery models which usually consist of low-intensity intervention. Speech-language pathologists need to counsel parents and so that they can adhere to the high intervention intensity.

Parents' perceptions on speech therapy delivery models in children with a cleft palate: A mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: This study investigated parents' perceptions on two different speech therapy delivery models in children with a CP ± L, namely an innovative high intensity speech intervention (i.e. HISI: 10 1-h sessions divided over 2 weeks) and a low intensity speech intervention (i.e. LISI: 10 1-h sessions divided over 10 weeks). METHOD: Twelve parents of 12 children who received HISI (n = 6) or LISI (n = 6) were contacted with the request to participate to this study to review their opinion on the received therapy. Participation included the completion of a questionnaire containing items related to satisfaction, speech progress, intervention intensity and frequency, transfer, and need for further speech therapy. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were carried out. The interviews were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in satisfaction with the "general speech therapy, "duration of one speech therapy session", "total intervention duration" and "degree of improvement of speech intelligibility". Following HISI, parents perceived more improvement in terms of spontaneous speech and better resolution of the speech disorders. The interviews revealed 3 themes of importance to the parents: (1) treatment-related expectations, (2) treatment-related burden, and (3) patient-therapist relationship. Parents in the HISI group reported two concerns: (1) the lack of variation when receiving daily intervention, and (2) the emotional burden when the child is confronted with his/her speech disorder on a daily basis. CONCLUSIONS: Parents were equally satisfied with the provided intervention. Parents in the HISI group perceived more speech progress following the intervention compared to parents in the LISI group. The intensive contact with the speech pathologist enhanced the patient-therapist relationship. To support a cultural shift away from low intensity therapy delivery models, it will be important to counsel and inform parents of the benefits of HISI and to counterbalance concerns.