A scoping review of qualitative studies on parents’ perspectives on speech, language, and communication interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This scoping review synthesized existing qualitative studies to provide conceptual clarity to “parents’ perspectives” in speech, language, and communication interventions for children.Methods Peer-reviewed articles published between January 2009 and June 2019 were reviewed in accordance with the steps recommended by Arksey and O’Malley. In total, 1883 unique records were screened, and 40 studies met inclusion criteria. Inductive content analysis was used to analyze the research questions and major themes reported in studies.Results The included studies were conducted across geographical regions and included parents of children of different ages and clinical diagnoses. Eight aspects of parents’ perspectives were identified: access, decision making, implementation, relationship, roles, impact, expectations, and general experience. In addition, a subset of studies explored parents’ opinions regarding technologies used in therapy.Conclusions Findings from this review suggest that parents’ perspectives have been explored across a range of geographical locations on interventions for various clinical populations. The identified categories provide some conceptual clarity for clinicians and for future research on this topic. Future studies should (i) better adhere to qualitative study reporting standards; (ii) explore parents’ perspectives regarding the context of speech language therapy; and (iii) include all parents’ perspectives in speech and language interventions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONParents’ perspectives in communication interventions are complex and multifaceted.Clinicians and researchers can consider parents’ perspectives using the eight, broad thematic categories identified in this scoping review.
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 | 0.088 | 0.221 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".