Evidence-based practice and clinical practice in child language: an online survey with Brazilian speech-language pathologists.
Marcelle Stella de Lima Souza, Ana Manhani Cáceres-Assenço
PMID 37970891WHAT IT FOUND
Most Brazilian child language therapists value evidence-based practice but struggle with the skills to use it.
Few have training in critical appraisal or English, limiting access to key databases. Barriers are knowledge gaps and lack of peer support, not time.
Key findings
01While 63.1% of therapists read scientific articles, only 24.6% have training in search strategies and few use international databases like SpeechBite.
02The main barriers reported were difficulty applying research to individual patients and lack of collective support, rather than insufficient time.
03Therapists with poor English proficiency reported significantly lower skills in finding and critically evaluating research compared to those with moderate or good proficiency.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The survey was conducted exclusively online, which may have restricted the sample. There is no official registry of SLPs working specifically in child language in Brazil, making it impossible to know the true response rate or how representative the sample is. The study relied on self-reported skills and knowledge, which may not reflect actual clinical competence. The questionnaire was adapted from physical therapy instruments and may not fully capture the nuances of speech-language pathology practice.
Declared interests
The study was financed in part by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior), a Brazilian government agency. No commercial conflicts of interest were declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that therapists who report using evidence-based practice are critically appraising high-quality international research. The survey shows that many rely on less rigorous sources or struggle with the skills needed to evaluate complex studies, meaning 'EBP use' as self-reported may differ significantly from strict academic definitions.