SLPSurveyCoDAS2022

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Speech Language Pathologists in India about Telerehabilitation Services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gagan Bajaj, Sudhin Karuppali

PMID 35584517

WHAT IT FOUND

Most Indian speech pathologists were unfamiliar with telerehabilitation before the pandemic, but technical confidence rose sharply during lockdown.

Privacy concerns and patient motivation remained significant barriers, with autism spectrum disorder identified as the most challenging condition to treat online.

Key findings

01Before the pandemic, 55% of surveyed speech pathologists in India were unfamiliar with or did not practice telerehabilitation services.

02During the pandemic, 73% of respondents reported improved technical knowledge for setting up and conducting telerehabilitation services.

03Autism spectrum disorder was identified as the most challenging condition to manage via telerehabilitation by 43% of respondents who answered the question.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study used convenience sampling and a small sample size of 102 participants, which may not represent the wider population of Indian speech-language pathologists. Self-reported data may be subject to recall bias or social desirability bias, particularly regarding skill improvement and attitudes. The survey was conducted during a specific phase of the pandemic (Unlock 2), so findings may not generalize to other periods or contexts.

Declared interests

No conflicts of interest or funding sources were reported in the provided text.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the 73% increase in reported technical knowledge as evidence of clinical competence or efficacy. This self-reported improvement occurred without formal training for 66% of respondents and does not confirm that patient outcomes were comparable to face-to-face therapy.

Read it on PubMed →