An evaluation is reported of an exercise-based approach to remediation of dyslexia-related disorders. Pupils in three years of a Warwickshire junior school were screened for risk of literacy difficulty using the Dyslexia Screening Test (DST). The 35 children scoring 0.4 or over on the DST were divided randomly into two groups matched for age and DST score. One quarter of the participants had an existing diagnosis of dyslexia, dyspraxia or ADHD. Both groups received the same treatment at school but the intervention group used the DDAT exercise programme daily at home. Performance on the DST and specialist cerebellar/vestibular and eye movement tests were assessed initially and after six months. Cerebellar/vestibular signs were substantially alleviated following the exercise treatment whereas there were no significant changes for the control group. Even after allowing for the passage of time, there were significant improvements for the intervention group in postural stability, dexterity, phonological skill, and (onetailed) for naming fluency and semantic fluency. Reading fluency showed a highly significant improvement for the intervention group, and nonsense passage reading was also improved significantly. Significantly greater improvements for the intervention group than the control group occurred for dexterity, reading, verbal fluency and semantic fluency. Substantial and significant improvements (compared with those in the previous year) also occurred for the exercise group on national standardized tests of reading, writing and comprehension. It is concluded that, in addition to its direct effects on balance, dexterity and eye movement control, the benefits of the DDAT exercise treatment transferred significantly to cognitive skills underlying literacy, to the reading

There are differences in speech sound acquisition between monolingual and bilingual children in terms of rate and patterns of error, with both positive and negative transfer occurring in bilingual children.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness on glycaemic control of a training programme in consultation skills for paediatric diabetes teams.Design Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting 26 UK secondary and tertiary care paediatric diabetes services.Participants 79 healthcare practitioners (13 teams) trained in the intervention (359 young people with type 1 diabetes aged 4-15 years and their main carers) and 13 teams allocated to the control group (334 children and their main carers).Intervention Talking Diabetes programme, which promotes shared agenda setting and guiding communication style, through flexible menu of consultation strategies to support patient led behaviour change.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level one year after training. Secondary outcomes were clinical measures (hypoglycaemic episodes, body mass index, insulin regimen), general and diabetes specific quality of life, self reported and proxy reported self care and enablement, perceptions of the diabetes team, self reported and carer reported importance of, and confidence in, undertaking diabetes self management measured over one year. Analysis was by intention to treat. An integrated process evaluation included audio recording a sample of 86 routine consultations to assess skills shortly after training (intervention group) and at one year follow-up (intervention and control group). Two key domains of skill assessment were use of the guiding communication style and shared agenda setting.Results 660/693 patients (95.2%) provided blood samples at follow-up. Training diabetes care teams had no effect on HbA1c levels (intervention effect 0.01, 95% confidence interval −0.02 to 0.04, P=0.5), even after adjusting for age and sex of the participants. At follow-up, trained staff (n=29) were more capable than controls (n=29) in guiding (difference in means 1.14, P<0.001) and agenda setting (difference in proportions 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.62). Although skills waned over time for the trained practitioners, the reduction was not significant for either guiding (difference in means −0.33, P=0.128) or use of agenda setting (difference in proportions −0.20, −0.42 to 0.05). 390 patients (56%) and 441 carers (64%) completed follow-up questionnaires. Some aspects of diabetes specific quality of life improved in controls: reduced problems with treatment barriers (mean difference −4.6, 95% confidence interval −8.5 to −0.6, P=0.03) and with treatment adherence (−3.1, −6.3 to −0.01, P=0.05). Short term ability to cope with diabetes increased in patients in intervention clinics (10.4, 0.5 to 20.4, P=0.04). Carers in the intervention arm reported greater excitement about clinic visits (1.9, 1.05 to 3.43, P=0.03) and improved continuity of care (0.2, 0.1 to 0.3, P=0.01). Conclusions Improving glycaemic control in children attending specialist diabetes clinics may not be possible through brief, team-wide training in consultation skills.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61568050.

Objective To identify specific aspects of teamworking associated with greater clinical efficiency in simulated obstetric emergencies.Design Cross-sectional secondary analysis of video recordings from the Simulation & Fire-drill Evaluation (SaFE) randomised controlled trial.Setting Six secondary and tertiary maternity units.Sample A total of 114 randomly selected healthcare professionals, in 19 teams of six members.Methods Two independent assessors, a clinician and a language communication specialist identified specific teamwork behaviours using a grid derived from the safety literature.Main outcome measures Relationship between teamwork behaviours and the time to administration of magnesium sulfate, a validated measure of clinical efficiency, was calculated.Results More efficient teams were likely to (1) have stated (recognised and verbally declared) the emergency (eclampsia) earlier (Kendall's rank correlation coefficient s b = )0.53, 95% CI from )0.74 to )0.32, P = 0.004); and (2) have managed the critical task using closed-loop communication (task clearly and loudly delegated, accepted, executed and completion acknowledged) (s b = 0.46, 95% CI 0.17-0.74, P = 0.022). Teams that administered magnesium sulfate within the allocated time (10 minutes) had significantly fewer exits from the labour room compared with teams who did not: a median of three (IQR 2-5) versus six exits (IQR 5-6) (P = 0.03, Mann-Whitney U-test).Conclusions Using administration of an essential drug as a valid surrogate of team efficiency and patient outcome after a simulated emergency, we found that more efficient teams were more likely to exhibit certain team behaviours relating to better handover and task allocation.

Coad J, et al. Evidence-based intervention for preschool children with primary speech and language impairments: Child Talkan exploratory mixed-methods study. Programme Grants Appl Res 2015;3(5). Programme Grants for Applied ResearchISSN 2050-4322 (Print) ISSN 2050-4330 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0109-10073. The contractual start date was in January 2011. The final report began editorial review in April 2014 and was accepted for publication in October 2014. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, CCF, NETSCC, PGfAR or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotation...