JCPSLP Vol 17 No 3 2015

Fresh science and pioneering practice

Around the journals

Doeltgen, S.H., Bradnam, L.V., Young, J.A., & Fong, E. (2015). Transcranial non-invasive brain stimulation in swallowing rehabilitation following stroke – A review of the literature. Physiology and Behavior, 143 , 1–9. Chris Brebner This is an excellent article which summarises the evidence for the relatively new area of non-invasive brain stimulation, a technique being used in swallowing rehabilitation. This article provides a descriptive review of the literature outlining the evidence that underpins this innovative technique in swallowing rehabilitation following stroke. Seventeen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed to explore the evidence. Particular consideration was given to the studies’ participant samples, cortical representations that had been targeted by the brain stimulation, and the measures used to evaluate the outcomes. These studies show that non-invasive brain stimulation may be a useful additional technique to support post-stroke swallowing rehabilitation. In addition to summarising the key evidence in this area, the authors discuss the limitations of the current evidence, in particular the relative infancy of this area, the small participant sample sizes, and differences in the design of the studies designs that have been conducted. This paper also summarises the clinical implications of this research. A must-read for those working in swallowing rehabilitation following stroke. Falkus, G., Tilley, C., Thomas, C., Hockey, H., Kennedy, A., Arnold, T., … Earney, R. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of parent–child interaction therapy with language delayed children: A clinical investigation. Child Language Teaching and Therapy , early online 1–11. Tara Shem Interventions that focus on the interactions between parents and their children are widely used by speech pathologists around the world. This article aims to address the lack of evidence, other than clinician report, on the effectiveness of such approaches. Eighteen parent–child dyads where the child was aged between 1;09 and 3;06 at initial referral participated in the UK-based study. Blind assessments pre and post intervention were conducted. The intervention used was a parent–child therapy regularly implemented for children in the clinical setting upon receiving an initial diagnosis of language delay. Results showed that after intervention, the children’s mean length of utterance had increased, as had the proportion of child to parent speech. Additionally, there were significant changes in the ratings given in the parent rating scale. The authors state that their results show that there are benefits of an intervention that targets working with parents and children on their interactions. However, they acknowledge that further research is needed to determine whether these effects are maintained over time and whether there are benefits seen in the children’s communication skills.

Hoff, E., & Core, C. (2015). What clinicians need to know about bilingual development. Seminars in Speech and Language , 36 (2), 89–99. Jess Young This article is one in a special edition on language impairment in bilingual children. This excellent discussion paper summarises the key evidence for nine recommendations for clinical practice with bilingual children. The nine conclusions (including some myth busters) summarised are that: 1) speaking two or more languages does not confuse children; 2) two languages can be learned simultaneously, and need not be separated; 3) it takes longer for a child to become proficient in two languages in comparison with learning only one; 4) language dominance is not the same as having only one language; 5) the best way to determine a bilingual child’s language learning capacity is to measure total vocabulary in both languages; 6) children’s strengths in each language will vary; 7) as for monolingual children, the quality and quantity of input will influence language learning; 8) families should be encouraged to retain their home languages; and 9) there is great heterogeneity in bilingual language environments, thus bilingual children’s language skills will also vary widely. A great read for all paediatric clinicians in our increasingly linguistically diverse nation! Have you seen the new Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Pathway (AARP) yet? It is a set of care standards designed for speech pathologists that aims to guide person-centred, evidence-based rehabilitation for people with aphasia. It was developed through national collaboration of speech pathology clinicians, researchers and people with aphasia and was launched in October 2014 at the Aphasiology Symposium of Australia. It consists of 82 best practice standards divided into eight core areas that cover the full spectrum of the rehabilitation journey for a person with aphasia from referral, through assessment, intervention, and enhancing the communicative environment. Each best practice standard is supported by a summary of the relevant scientific evidence, resources, and original references so it becomes almost a one-stop shop for current, relevant, evidence-based management ideas. The AARP fits nicely within the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and health (ICF) framework and addresses assessment and management of aphasia from an impairment perspective and via the social approach. It is therefore relevant for speech pathologists working across all health care settings from acute to community. The ultimate aim of the pathway is to improve the quality of patient management and optimise outcomes for our clients with aphasia, so take a look today at http://www. aphasiapathway.com.au/ What’s new in aphasia? Joanne Murray

170

JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 3 2015

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology