Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe and examine parent views of speech-language pathology (SLP) for children born with cleft palate delivered via telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK).
Method: Parents were asked whether they found this method of delivery “very effective,” “somewhat effective,” or “not at all effective.” Free text was then invited. There were 212 responses. Ordinal chi-square, Kruskal–Wallis, or Fisher's exact tests examined associations between parent views of effectiveness and biological variables and socioeconomic status. Free text responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
Results: One hundred and forty (66.0%) respondents reported that SLP delivered via telemedicine was “somewhat effective,” 56 (26.4%) “very effective,” and 16 (7.6%) “not at all effective.” There was no evidence of an association between parent reported effectiveness and any of the explanatory variables. Parent-reported challenges impacting on effectiveness included technology issues and keeping their children engaged with sessions. Importantly, telemedicine was viewed as “better than nothing.”
Conclusions: Most parents reported that they felt SLP delivered via telemedicine during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK was at least “somewhat effective.” It is important to interpret this in the context of there being no other method of service delivery during this time and that this study only represents families who were able to access SLP delivered via telemedicine. Further work is needed to identify which children with cleft palate might benefit from SLP delivered via telemedicine to inform postpandemic service provision.
Method: Parents were asked whether they found this method of delivery “very effective,” “somewhat effective,” or “not at all effective.” Free text was then invited. There were 212 responses. Ordinal chi-square, Kruskal–Wallis, or Fisher's exact tests examined associations between parent views of effectiveness and biological variables and socioeconomic status. Free text responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
Results: One hundred and forty (66.0%) respondents reported that SLP delivered via telemedicine was “somewhat effective,” 56 (26.4%) “very effective,” and 16 (7.6%) “not at all effective.” There was no evidence of an association between parent reported effectiveness and any of the explanatory variables. Parent-reported challenges impacting on effectiveness included technology issues and keeping their children engaged with sessions. Importantly, telemedicine was viewed as “better than nothing.”
Conclusions: Most parents reported that they felt SLP delivered via telemedicine during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK was at least “somewhat effective.” It is important to interpret this in the context of there being no other method of service delivery during this time and that this study only represents families who were able to access SLP delivered via telemedicine. Further work is needed to identify which children with cleft palate might benefit from SLP delivered via telemedicine to inform postpandemic service provision.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 307-316 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 6 Jan 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Apr 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:for the Cleft Collective was provided by The Scar Free Foundation. This publication involves data derived from independent research funded by The Scar Free Foundation (REC approval 13/SW/0064). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of The Scar Free Foundation or The Cleft Collective Cohort Studies team. Authors Southby and Wren were supported by a Bristol Health Research Charity (http://www.bhrcharity.org.uk) research fellowship for this piece of work. The authors are grateful to the families who participated in the study, the United Kingdom National Health Service cleft teams, and The Cleft Collective team, who helped facilitate the study. This research has been conducted using The Cleft Collective Resource under Application Number CC030. The authors also wish to acknowledge the families who took the time to respond to the survey during a time of such great uncertainty.
Funding Information:
Funding for the Cleft Collective was provided by The Scar Free Foundation. This publication involves data derived from independent research funded by The Scar Free Foundation (REC approval 13/SW/0064). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of The Scar Free Foundation or The Cleft Collective Cohort Studies team. Authors Southby and Wren were supported by a Bristol Health Research Charity (http://www.bhrcharity.org.uk) research fellowship for this piece of work. The authors are grateful to the families who participated in the study, the United Kingdom National Health Service cleft teams, and The Cleft Collective team, who helped facilitate the study. This research has been conducted using The Cleft Collective Resource under Application Number CC030. The authors also wish to acknowledge the families who took the time to respond to the survey during a time of such great uncertainty.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.