Maximising the Impact of Speech and Language Therapy for Children With Speech Sound Disorder (The MISLToe-SSD) Study: Developing a Core Outcome Set (COS) for Routine Data Collection From UK NHS Speech and Language Therapy Services.
Helen Stringer, Sam Burr, Joanne Cleland and 2 others
PMID 41510977WHAT IT FOUND
UK speech and language therapists agreed on a core set of outcomes to track in routine practice.
They selected increased intelligibility as the primary goal, measured by parent report, alongside six specific speech metrics using the DEAP assessment. This standardises data collection for future service evaluation.
Key findings
01The expert panel agreed that increased speech intelligibility, measured by the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) completed by parents, should be the primary outcome.
02Six secondary outcomes were agreed upon, including percentage consonants correct and phonological awareness, with the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP) and Newcastle Assessment of Phonological Awareness (NAPA) selected as the standard measurement tools.
03Quality of life outcomes were excluded from this core set because no existing instruments were considered suitable for routine data collection, despite being recognised as important.
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 COS is designed specifically for the UK healthcare context (NHS and independent services), so its direct applicability to other systems may be limited. Quality of life outcomes were excluded due to a lack of suitable instruments, meaning the final set does not capture this important aspect of patient experience. The panel consisted of self-identified experts in SSD, which may not reflect the views or practices of generalist speech and language therapists. The study reports consensus on what to measure, not the effectiveness of any specific intervention or the clinical utility of the COS in practice.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit programme. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this as evidence that the DEAP or ICS are more effective than other assessments in improving patient outcomes. This study reports expert consensus on which tools to use for standardised data collection in research and service evaluation, not a trial of their clinical efficacy.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →