2024/08/01 by Lucy Rodgers, Nicola Botting, Sam Harding +3 · 1 voice
Psychology · Medicine · #Language Development and Disorders #Infant Development and Preterm Care #Stuttering Research and Treatment
paper · pdf · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081571
openalex publication_date 2024/08/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/15
OBJECTIVES: To descriptively compare and contrast intervention techniques for preschool children with features of developmental language disorder (outcome: oral vocabulary) and speech sound disorder (outcome: speech comprehensibility) and analyse them in relation to effectiveness and theory. DESIGN: This is a systematic review with narrative synthesis. The process was supported by an expert steering group consisting of relevant professionals and people with lived experience. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Emcare, MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, ERIC, and Communication Source from January 2012 were searched. Relevant studies were obtained from an initial published review (up to January 2012). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Interventions for preschool children (80% aged 2:0-5:11 years) with idiopathic speech or language needs; outcomes relating to either oral vocabulary or speech comprehensibility. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: . RESULTS: 24 studies were included: 18 for oral vocabulary and 6 for speech comprehensibility. There were 11 randomised controlled trials, 2 cohort studies and 11 case series. Similarities included a focus on input-related techniques and similar therapy activities. Speech studies were more likely to be professional-led and clinic-led, rather than at home and through a parent. Analysis was restricted by heterogeneity in study design and terminology, as well as gaps within intervention reporting. Information deemed important to the expert steering group was missing. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities and differences between intervention techniques for oral vocabulary and speech comprehensibility have been identified and synthesised. However, analysis of effectiveness was limited due to issues with study design and heterogeneity within studies. This has implications for the progression of the evidence base within the field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022373931.