Aim: To determine the prevalence of drooling, swallowing, and feeding problems in persons with cerebral palsy (CP) across the lifespan.Method: A systematic review was conducted using five different databases (AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed). The selection process was completed by two independent researchers and the methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the STROBE and AXIS guidelines. Meta‐analyses were conducted to determine pooled prevalence estimates of drooling, swallowing, and feeding problems with stratified group analyses by type of assessment and Gross Motor Function Classification System level.Results: A total of 42 studies were included. Substantial variations in selected outcome measures and variables were observed, and data on adults were limited. Pooled prevalence estimates determined by meta‐analyses were as high as 44.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.6–52.7) for drooling, 50.4% (95% CI 36.0–64.8) for swallowing problems, and 53.5% (95% CI 40.7–65.9) for feeding problems. Group analyses for type of assessments were non‐significant; however, more severely impaired functioning in CP was associated with concomitant problems of increased drooling, swallowing, and feeding.Interpretation: Drooling, swallowing, and feeding problems are very common in people with CP. Consequently, they experience increased risks of malnutrition and dehydration, aspiration pneumonia, and poor quality of life.What this paper adds: Drooling, swallowing, and feeding problems are very common in persons with cerebral palsy (CP). The prevalence of drooling, swallowing, and feeding problems is 44.0%, 50.4%, and 53.5% respectively. There are limited data on the prevalence of drooling, swallowing, and feeding problems in adults. Higher Gross Motor Function Classification System levels are associated with higher prevalence of drooling, swallowing, and feeding problems. There is increased risk for malnutrition, dehydration, aspiration pneumonia, and poor quality of life in CP.

Background: Conveying instructions is an everyday use of language, and gestures are likely to be a key feature of this. Although co-speech iconic gestures are tightly integrated with language, and people with aphasia (PWA) produce procedural discourses impaired at a linguistic level, no previous studies have investigated how PWA use co-speech iconic gestures in these contexts. Aims: This study investigated how PWA communicated meaning using gesture and language in procedural discourses, compared with neurologically healthy people (NHP). We aimed to identify the relative relationship of gesture and speech, in the context of impaired language, both overall and in individual events. Methods & Procedures: Twenty-nine PWA and 29 NHP produced two procedural discourses. The structure and semantic content of language of the whole discourses were analysed through predicate argument structure and spatial motor terms, and gestures were analysed for frequency and semantic form. Gesture and language were analysed in two key events, to determine the relative information presented in each modality. Outcomes & Results: PWA and NHP used similar frequencies and forms of gestures, although PWA used syntactically simpler language and fewer spatial words. This meant, overall, relatively more information was present in PWA gesture. This finding was also reflected in the key events, where PWA used gestures conveying rich semantic information alongside semantically impoverished language more often than NHP. Conclusions: PWA gestures, containing semantic information omitted from the concurrent speech, may help listeners with meaning when language is impaired. This finding indicates gesture should be included in clinical assessments of meaning-making.

Purpose: In this study, the authors (a) investigated whether a group of people with severe aphasia could learn a vocabulary of pantomime gestures through therapy and (b) compared their learning of gestures with their learning of words. The authors also examined whether gesture therapy cued word production and whether naming therapy cued gestures. Method: Fourteen people with severe aphasia received 15 hr of gesture and naming treatments. Evaluations comprised repeated measures of gesture and word production, comparing treated and untreated items. Results: Baseline measures were stable but improved significantly following therapy. Across the group, improvements in naming were greater than improvements in gesture. This trend was evident in most individuals' results, although 3 participants made better progress in gesture. Gains were item specific, and there was no evidence of cross-modality cueing. Items that received gesture therapy did not improve in naming, and items that received naming therapy did not improve in gesture. Conclusions: Results show that people with severe aphasia can respond to gesture and naming therapies. Given the unequal gains, naming may be a more productive therapy target than gesture for many (although not all) individuals with severe aphasia. The communicative benefits of therapy were not examined but are addressed in a follow-up article.