Clinician and Caregiver Perspectives on a Community-Based Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing Treatment Trial for Childhood Apraxia of Speech: Exploring Perceptions of Research and Routine Clinical Practice

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC) is an evidence-based treatment for children with childhood apraxia of speech. In clinical practice, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) frequently use an eclectic approach incorporating aspects of DTTC, for reasons that are not well understood. This research note describes a qualitative investigation of the experiences of SLPs and caregivers who participated in protocolized research DTTC for a 24-session treatment efficacy study. Specifically, we sought to understand the perspectives of these SLPs and caregivers regarding (a) DTTC treatment, as provided during the study, and (b) participating in a treatment research study. METHOD: Four SLPs and three caregivers participated in semistructured interviews, via Zoom, 4 weeks after the treatment study. Questions explored perceptions of research DTTC treatment and experiences of participating in a research study. Data were analyzed with inductive thematic analysis using an iterative and reflective process. RESULTS: One overarching main theme was identified: "Research and clinical practice: Different priorities and processes," with five subthemes. The subthemes were (a) research DTTC is more challenging, (b) research DTTC is surprisingly effective, (c) clinical practice is preferable to research, (d) research participation leads to new learning, and (e) power differential exists between researchers and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Aspects of the research DTTC were uncomfortable for SLPs and families, despite its efficacy and what they learned from participating. SLPs perceived a schism between researchers and clinicians. More needs to be done to decrease the perceived gap between researchers and clinicians to facilitate implementation of evidence-based practice in nonresearch contexts. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28299764.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.