Paediatric speech-language pathology service delivery: An exploratory survey of Australian parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consideration of client values and preferences for service delivery is integral to engaging with the evidence-based practice triangle (E(3)BP), but as yet such preferences are under-researched. This exploratory study canvassed paediatric speech-language pathology services around Australia through an online survey of parents and compared reported service delivery to preferences, satisfaction, and external research evidence on recommended service delivery. Respondents were 154 parents with 192 children, living across a range of Australian locations and socio-economic status areas. Children had a range of speech and language disorders. A quarter of children waited over 6 months to receive initial assessment. Reported session type, frequency, and length were incongruent with both research recommendations and parents' wishes. Sixty per cent of parents were happy or very happy with their experiences, while 27% were unhappy. Qualitative responses revealed concerns such as; a lack of available, frequent, or local services, long waiting times, cut-off ages for eligibility, discharge processes, and an inability to afford private services. These findings challenge the profession to actively engage with E(3)BP including; being cognisant of evidence-based service delivery literature, keeping clients informed of service delivery policies, individualizing services, and exploring alternative service delivery methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".