Objective: To describe telehealth interventions delivered by allied health professionals and nurses ...

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.

Purpose: This study reports on data from a survey of speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) language assessment practices for elementary school–age children. The objective was to investigate the regularity with which SLPs use different types of assessments (described across data types, task types, environmental contexts, and dynamic features). This study also investigated factors that influence assessment practice, the main sources from which SLPs obtain information on language assessment and the main challenges reported by SLPs in relation to language assessment. Method: A web-based survey was used to collect information from 407 Australian SLPs regarding the types of assessments they use. Factors that influenced the regularity with which different types of assessments were used were investigated using regression analysis. Results: Most SLPs regularly used assessments that are norm-referenced, decontextualized, and conducted in a clinical context and less regularly used other types of assessments. Service agency, Australian state, and SLPs' years of experience were found to influence the regularity with which some types of assessments were used. Informal discussions with colleagues were the most frequently identified source of information on assessment practice. Main challenges related to limited time, lack of assessment materials, and lack of confidence in assessing children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Conclusions: SLPs could improve current language assessment practice for elementary school–age children through more regular use of some types of assessments. Actions to facilitate evidence-based assessment practice should consider the contextual differences that exist between service agencies and states and address challenges that SLPs experience in relation to language assessment. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14378948

Purpose: Given the barriers that inconsistent terminology poses for the Speech-Language Pathology (SLP) profession, this study aimed to develop an agreed-upon taxonomy with well-defined categories for describing language assessment practices for children. Method: A taxonomy with illustrative terms for describing assessments across four aspects (modality/domain, purpose, delivery and form) was developed with reference to contemporary literature. In a three round Delphi study, SLPs with expertise in child language were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the taxonomy and provide feedback. Participants were also asked to apply the taxonomy by categorising assessments presented in case studies. Result: A total of 55 participants completed round one, while 43 and 32 completed rounds two and three respectively. Agreed consensus with the taxonomy was achieved in both rounds one and two, with at least 88% of participants agreeing with each aspect and 100% agreeing with the overall structure. In round three, an agreement was reached on 7/10 components for one case study and 4/10 for the other. Conclusion: The development of this taxonomy represents a significant step towards providing detailed terminology for describing language assessments. Future research is needed to investigate implementation strategies to facilitate consistent application of the taxonomy by SLPs.