BACKGROUND: Early language delay is exacerbated by social disadvantage. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self-perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. Methods used to achieve successful health outcomes in socially disadvantaged clinical populations may need enhancing.
AIMS: To compare the impact of standard parent-based intervention (PBI) to enhanced PBI for young children with speech, language and communication needs (SCLN) and their families living in more socially disadvantaged populations.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A multicentre clustered blind randomised controlled trial was used to compare the effect of parent-based group interventions to improve early language development with children (mean age 27.5 months) from more socially disadvantaged populations with an expressive vocabulary of 40 or less single words. Intervention sessions were delivered by a speech and language therapist, over a 20-week period. Participants received one of two interventions: (1) Standard Care - indirect group PBI - (PBI) (2) Enhanced Care: indirect group enhanced PBI - (EPBI). Both standardised and non-standardised measures were used as outcomes. Parent engagement in the intervention was captured through analysis of attendance and the Parent Activation Measure - Speech & Language Therapy (PAM-SLT) (Insignia Health, 2014). The PAM measures a person's knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their own health and well-being (NHS England, 2018). In this study, activation referred to parents' knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their child's language development.
OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five participants were randomised at baseline. Children in both groups made significant improvements in the outcome on MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories Sentence Length, from pre-intervention to post-intervention and 6 months post-intervention (p < 0.05). Changes in vocabulary and expressive language skills were more equivocal, showing wide variation in confidence intervals for both groups. Where parents attended at least one intervention session almost all effect sizes were in favour of the EPBI intervention. Parents' activation levels significantly increased for both groups (EPBI p < 0.001, PBI p = 0.003), with a moderate effect size in favour of EPBI (Hedges' G 0.37, confidence interval -0.02 to 0.76), although wide variation was found.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This trial provides some evidence of facilitating the language development of children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting caregivers. However, we found variation in outcomes; some children made excellent progress, whilst others did not. Further exploration of parent engagement and its relationship to child language outcomes will be valuable to understanding more about mechanisms of change in interventions that involve parents.
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) have a knock-on effect on emotional well-being, school readiness, literacy and school attainment, putting children at increased risk of long-term consequences such as poor literacy, mental health problems and unemployment. In disadvantaged areas, the prevalence of language difficulties is higher than elsewhere. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self-perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas can make improvements in their language development through parent intervention, although wide individual variation was found. There was some evidence that children achieve better outcomes with EPBI, which employed an interagency collaborative approach. Parent's engagement (activation levels) increased significantly over time with intervention, with the increase twice as big for EPBI. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This trial provides some evidence that it is possible to facilitate the language development of children from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting their caregivers. Further research would be useful to determine whether increases in parent engagement are related to adherence to intervention and change in child outcomes.