Speech-Language Pathology and Telerehabilitation

Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

Speech-language pathology services are eminently suited to delivery via telerehabilitation owing to the audio–visual nature of the interaction between the clinician and the client. An increasing need for alternate modes of service delivery in this profession is evident because of the growing demand and cost of health care, a changing society, and rapid developments in technology. Equitable access to services, improvement in quality of care, ongoing intervention, and the promotion of self-management are several benefits to be derived from telerehabilitation. The evidence base supporting the use of telerehabilitation in speech-language pathology continues to grow, with research conducted in neurogenic communication disorders, stuttering, voice disorders, dysphagia, laryngectomy, and pediatric speech, language, and literacy disorders. A variety of technologies are now available to support a continuum of care for people with chronic communication and swallowing disorders. The future of telerehabilitation in speech-language pathology is promising, although several challenges such as clinician confidence, education and training, professional portability, reimbursement, and economic evaluation need to be addressed.

Keywords

Depression Expense Arena Aphasia Apraxia 

References

  1. 1.
    American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Professional issues in telepractice for speech-language pathologists [Professional Issues Statement]. 2010. Available at: http://www.asha.org/policy/PI2010-00315.htm,  doi:10.1044/policy.PI2010-00315HY.
  2. 2.
    Bach-y-Rita P. Conceptual issues relevant to present and future neurologic rehabilitation. In: Levin H, Grafman J, editors. Neuroplasticity and reorganization of function after brain injury. New York: Oxford Press; 2000. p. 357–79.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bednarz A. The network world. 2011. Available at: http://www.networkworld.com/supp/2011/25thanniversary/050911-anniversary.html. Accessed 19 Jun 2011.
  4. 4.
    Brennan DM, Georgeadis AC, Baron CR, et al. The effect of videoconference-based telerehabilitation on story retelling performance by brain-injured subjects and its implications for remote speech-language therapy. Telemed J E Health. 2004;10:147–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruins Slot K, Berge E, Dorman P, et al. Impact of functional status at six months on long term survival in patients with ischaemic stroke: prospective cohort studies. BMJ. 2008;336:376–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cardoso L, Steinberg J. Telemedicine for recently discharged older patients. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16:49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carey B, O’Brian S, Onslow M, et al. Randomized controlled non-inferiority trial of telehealth treatment for chronic stuttering: the Camperdown program. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2010;45:108–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cherney LR. Oral reading for language in aphasia (ORLA): evaluating the efficacy of computer delivered therapy in chronic nonfluent aphasia. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010;17:423–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cherney LR, Holland AL, Cole R. Computerized script training for aphasia: preliminary results. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2008;17:19–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cherney LR, Kaye RC, Hitch RS. The best of both worlds: combining synchronous and asynchronous telepractice in the treatment of aphasia. Perspect Neurophysiol Neurogenet Speech Lang Disord. 2011;21:78–129.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Constantinescu G, Theodoros DG, Russell T, et al. Home-based speech treatment for Parkinson’s disease delivered remotely: a case report. J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16:100–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Constantinescu G, Theodoros D, Russell T, et al. Assessing disordered speech and voice in Parkinson’s disease: a telerehabilitation application. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2010;45:630–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Constantinescu G, Theodoros DG, Russell T, et al. Treating disordered speech and voice in Parkinson’s disease online: a randomised controlled noninferiority trial. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2011;46:1–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davalos M, French MT, Burdick AE, et al. Economic evaluation of telemedicine: review of the literature and research guidelines for benefit-cost analysis. Telemed J E Health. 2009;15:933–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Georgeadis A, Brennan D, Barker LM, et al. Telerehabilitation and its effect on story retelling by adults with neurogenic communication disorders. Aphasiology. 2004;18:639–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Halpern A, Matos C, Ramig L, et al. LSVTC – a PDA supported speech treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Paper presented at the 9th international congress of Parkinson’s disease and movement disorders, New Orleans, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hayes A, Qu L, Weston R, et al. Families in Australia 2011: sticking together in good and tough times. Melbourne: Australian Institute Family Studies; 2011. p. 1–23.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hill AJ, Theodoros DG, Russell TG, et al. An internet-based telerehabilitation system for the assessment of motor speech disorders: a pilot study. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2006;15:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hill AJ, Theodoros DG, Russell T, et al. The re-design and re-evaluation of an internet-based telerehabilitation system for the assessment of dysarthria in adults. Telemed J E Health. 2009;15:840–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hill AJ, Theodoros DG, Russell T, et al. The effects of aphasia severity upon the ability to assess language disorders via telerehabilitation. Aphasiology. 2009;23:627–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hill A, Theodoros DG, Russell T, et al. Using telerehabilitation to assess apraxia of speech in adults. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2009;44:731–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Howell S, Tripoliti E, Pring T. Delivering the Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT®) by web camera: a feasibility study. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2009;44:287–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jones F, Riazi A. Self-efficacy and self-management after stroke: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:797–810.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krupinski E, Dimmick S, Grigsby J, et al. Research recommendations for the American Telemedicine Association. Telemed J E Health. 2006;12:579589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Legg L, Langhorne P. Rehabilitation therapy services for stroke patients living at home: a systematic review of clinical trials. Lancet. 2004;363:352–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Linebarger MC, Schwartz MF, Kohn SE. Computer-based training of language production: an exploratory study. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2001;11:57–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mashima PA, Birkmire Peters DP, Syms MJ, et al. Telehealth: voice therapy using telecommunications technology. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2003;12:432–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McCue M, Fairman A, Pramuka M. Enhancing quality of life through telerehabilitation. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2010;21:195–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morris J, Mueller J, Jones M. Tomorrow’s Elders with disabilities: what the wireless industry needs to know. J Eng Des. 2010;2:131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mortley J, Wade J, Davies A, et al. An investigation into the feasibility of remotely monitored computer therapy for people with aphasia. Adv Speech Lang Pathol. 2003;5:27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Myers C. Telehealth applications in head and neck oncology. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2005;2:125–9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Older Americans. Key indicators of well-being. Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2010. Available at: http://www.agingstats.gov. Accessed 13 Sep 2011.
  33. 33.
    Palsbo SE. Equivalence of functional communication assessment in speech pathology using videoconferencing. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13:40–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parmanto B, Saptono A, Pramana G, et al. VISTYER: versatile and integrated system for telerehabilitation. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16:939–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pickering M, McAllister L, Hagler P, et al. External factors influencing the profession in six societies. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1998;7:5–17.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ramsberger G, Marie B. Self-administered cued naming therapy: a single-participant investigation of a computer-based therapy program replicated in four cases. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;16:343–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Semel E, Wiig EH, Secord WA. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals, 4th edn (CELF-4). Toronto: The Psychological Corporation; 2003.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sharma S, Ward EC, Russell T, et al. Assessing swallowing disorders online: a pilot telerehabilitation study. Telemed J E Health. 2011;17:688–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Theodoros DG. Telerehabilitation: current status and needs. San Antonio, TX: Paper presented at the American Telemedicine Conference; 2010.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Theodoros DG, Constantinescu G, Russell T, et al. Treating the speech disorder in Parkinson’s disease online. J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12 Suppl 3:88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Theodoros DG, Hill AJ, Russell T, et al. Assessing acquired language disorders in adults via the Internet. Telemed J E Health. 2008;14:552–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tindall LR, Huebner RA. The impact of an application of telerehabilitation technology on caregiver burden. Int J Telerehab. 2009;1:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tindall LR, Huebner RA, Stemple JC, et al. Videophone-delivered voice therapy: a comparative analysis of outcomes to traditional delivery for adults with Parkinson’s disease. Telemed J E Health. 2008;14:1070–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thompson CK, Choy JW, Holland A, et al. Sentactics: computer-automated treatment of underlying forms. Aphasiology. 2010;24:1242–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vaughn GR. Tel-communicology: health-care delivery system for persons with communicative disorders. Am Speech-Lang Hear Assoc. 1976;18:13–7.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Waite M. Online assessment and treatment of childhood speech, language, and literacy disorders. Doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Queensland; unpublished 2010.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Waite M, Cahill L, Theodoros D, et al. A pilot study of online assessment of childhood speech disorders. J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12 Suppl 3:92–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Waite M, Theodoros DG, Russell T, et al. Internet-based telehealth assessment of language using the CELF-4. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2010;41:445–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Waite M, Theodoros DG, Russell T, et al. Assessing children’s literacy via an internet-based telehealth system. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16:564–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ward E, Crombie J, Trickey M, et al. Assessment of communication and swallowing post-laryngectomy: a remote telerehabilitation trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15:232–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ward EC, Sharma S, Burns C, et al. Using telerehabilitation to assess clinical dysphagia status. San Antonio, TX: Paper presented at the Dysphagia Research Society; 2011.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ward L, White J, Russell T, et al. Assessment of communication and swallowing function post laryngectomy: a telerehabilitation trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13 Suppl 3:88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wilson L, Onslow M, Lincoln M. Telehealth adaptation of the Lidcombe program of early stuttering intervention: five case studies. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2004;13:81–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Winters JM, Winters JM. A telehomecare model for optimizing rehabilitation outcomes. Telemed J E Health. 2004;10:200–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    World Health Organization. ICF: international classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ylvisaker M. Context-sensitive cognitive rehabilitation after brain injury: theory and practice. Brain Impair. 2003;4:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Speech Pathology, Telerehabilitation Research Unit, School of Health and Rehabilitation SciencesThe University of QueenslandSt. Lucia, BrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations