Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-intensity versus low-intensity speech intervention in children with a cleft palate: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

被引:0
|
作者
Allemeersch, Fien [1 ]
Van Lierde, Kristiane [1 ]
Verhaeghe, Nick [2 ,3 ]
Bettens, Kim [1 ]
Mouton, Tara [1 ,4 ]
Hens, Greet [4 ,5 ]
Alighieri, Cassandra [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ghent, Ctr Speech & Language Sci, Dept Rehabil Sci, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 2P1, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
[2] Univ Ghent, Interuniv Ctr Hlth Econ Res I CHER, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Ghent, Belgium
[3] Vrije Univ Brussel, Interuniv Ctr Hlth Econ Res I CHER, Dept Publ Hlth, Brussels, Belgium
[4] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Neurosci, Expt Otorhinolaryngol, Leuven, Belgium
[5] Univ Hosp Leuven, Multidisciplinary Cleft Lip & Palate Team, Leuven, Belgium
关键词
cleft palate; cost-effectiveness; intervention intensity; randomized controlled trial; speech therapy; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; COMMUNICATION ATTITUDE; SOUND DISORDERS; THERAPY; LANGUAGE; LIP; VALIDITY; RESPONSIVENESS; RELIABILITY; VELO;
D O I
10.1111/1460-6984.70019
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Background: In children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP +/- L), some evidence exists for superior results of high-intensity speech intervention (HISI) compared with low-intensity speech intervention (LISI) on speech and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, the existing research often involves small sample sizes. Additionally, therapy in these studies is typically administered by researchers with extensive experience in treating speech disorders in these children. In contrast, first-line speech-language pathologists (SLPs) often possess considerably less experience in treating these children and clinical practice is subject to a wider array of environmental influences. Moreover, there are insufficient data on the cost-effectiveness of HISI compared with LISI. So far, these factors have hampered the implementation of HISI in clinical cleft practice. Aims: The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to compare the effectiveness of HISI and LISI on a larger societal scale, as delivered by first-line SLPs, on speech and HRQoL in Belgian Dutch-speaking children with a CP +/- L; and (2) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. Methods & Procedures: This study consists of a large-scale, longitudinal, two-centre randomized controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of HISI and LISI. Children with a CP +/- L, aged between 4 and 12 years, are randomly assigned to one of the two intervention groups. A sample size calculation determined that 35 participants per group are needed to ensure adequate statistical power. Children in the HISI group will receive intervention with a session duration of 30 min, a dose frequency of five sessions per week and a total intervention duration of 8 weeks (two 4-week blocks with a rest period of 12 weeks). Children in the LISI group will receive intervention with a session duration of 30 min, a dose frequency of two sessions per week and a total intervention duration of 20 weeks. The cumulative intervention intensity is kept constant. Each child will receive identical phonetic-phonological speech intervention provided by first-line community SLPs in private practices. Speech samples and patient- and caregiver-reported outcome measures will be collected on multiple data points before, during and after the intervention period. The cost-effectiveness will be evaluated by applying a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. Outcomes & Results: It is hypothesized that HISI will lead to superior speech outcomes in terms of consonant production and proficiency, resonance, speech understandability and speech acceptability, as well as improved HRQoL compared with LISI. Additionally, HISI is expected to be cost-effective compared with LISI. Conclusions & Implications: This project contributes to the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines regarding speech intervention intensity in children with a CP +/- L.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Is High-Intensity Speech Intervention Better? A Comparison of High-Intensity Intervention Versus Low-Intensity Intervention in Children With a Cleft Palate
    Alighieri, Cassandra
    Van Lierde, Kristiane
    De Caesemaeker, Anne-Sophie
    Demuynck, Kris
    Bruneel, Laura
    D'haeseleer, Evelien
    Bettens, Kim
    JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 2021, 64 (09): : 3398 - 3415
  • [2] The effectiveness of high-intensity versus low-intensity back schools in an occupational setting -: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial
    Heymans, MW
    de Vet, HCW
    Bongers, PM
    Knol, DL
    Koes, BW
    van Mechelen, W
    SPINE, 2006, 31 (10) : 1075 - 1082
  • [3] High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Surveillance for Patients With Colorectal Adenomas A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Meester, Reinier G. S.
    Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris
    Winawer, Sidney J.
    Zauber, Ann G.
    Knudsen, Amy B.
    Ladabaum, Uri
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2019, 171 (09) : 612 - +
  • [4] Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of a High- and a Low-Intensity Smoking Cessation Intervention in Sweden: A Randomized Trial
    Nohlert, Eva
    Helgason, Asgeir R.
    Tillgren, Per
    Tegelberg, Ake
    Johansson, Pia
    NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH, 2013, 15 (09) : 1519 - 1527
  • [5] Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up
    Feldman, Inna
    Helgason, Asgeir Runar
    Johansson, Pia
    Tegelberg, Ake
    Nohlert, Eva
    BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (08):
  • [6] High-intensity versus low-intensity resistance training in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial
    de Zwart, Arjan H.
    Dekker, Joost
    Roorda, Leo D.
    van der Esch, Martin
    Lips, Paul
    van Schoor, Natasja M.
    Heijboer, Annemiek C.
    Turkstra, Franktien
    Gerritsen, Martijn
    Hakkinen, Arja
    Bennell, Kim
    Steultjens, Martjin P. M.
    Lems, Willem F.
    van der Leeden, Marike
    CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 2022, 36 (07) : 952 - 967
  • [7] Early High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Rehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Bade, Michael J.
    Struessel, Tamara
    Dayton, Michael
    Foran, Jared
    Kim, Raymond H.
    Miner, Todd
    Wolfe, Pamela
    Kohrt, Wendy M.
    Dennis, Douglas
    Stevens-Lapsley, Jennifer E.
    ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH, 2017, 69 (09) : 1360 - 1368
  • [8] Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of a high-intensity statin compared to a low-intensity statin in the management of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia
    Nherera, L.
    Calvert, N. W.
    DeMott, K.
    Humphries, S. E.
    Neil, H. A. W.
    Minhas, R.
    Thorogood, M.
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2010, 26 (03) : 529 - 536
  • [9] The effectiveness of a high-intensity interval games intervention in schoolchildren: A cluster-randomized trial
    Martinez-Vizcaino, Vicente
    Soriano-Cano, Alba
    Garrido-Miguel, Miriam
    Cavero-Redondo, Ivan
    Prada de Medio, Enrique
    Martinez Madrid, Vanesa
    Alberto Martinez-Hortelano, Jose
    Berlanga-Macias, Carlos
    Sanchez-Lopez, Mairena
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS, 2022, 32 (04) : 765 - 781
  • [10] Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of guided self-help for depression for autistic adults: the Autism Depression Trial (ADEPT-2) - protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of a remotely delivered low-intensity intervention
    Mckeon, Holly Emily
    Cotton, Leonora
    Aldridge, Rona
    Cape, Alison
    Clout, Madeleine
    Cooper, Kate
    Dagnan, Dave
    Dawn, Ed
    Frost, Jessica
    Georgakopoulou, Aikaterini
    Garfield, Kirsty
    Horwood, Jeremy
    Ingham, Barry
    Jervis, Vicky
    Kessler, David
    Langdon, Peter
    Metcalfe, Chris
    Rai, Dheeraj
    Realpe, Alba
    Russell, Christine
    Sheridan, Hannah
    Slowinska, Karolina
    Thorn, Joanna
    Wen, Liping
    Wiles, Nicola
    Russell, Ailsa
    BMJ OPEN, 2024, 14 (11):