BackgroundWith current policy in healthcare research, in the United Kingdom and internationally, focused on development of research excellence in individuals and teams, building capacity for implementation and translation of research is paramount among the professionals who use that research in daily practice. The judicious use of research outcomes and evaluation of best evidence and practice in healthcare is integrally linked to the research capacity and capabilities of the workforce. In addition to promoting high quality research, mechanisms for actively enhancing research capacity more generally must be in place to address the complexities that both undermine and facilitate this activity.MethodsA comprehensive collaborative model for building research capacity in one health professional group, speech and language therapy, was developed in a region within the UK and is presented here. The North East of England and the strong research ethos of this profession in addressing complex interventions offered a fertile context for developing and implementing a model which integrated the healthcare and university sectors. Two key frameworks underpin this model. The first addresses the individual participants’ potential trajectory from research consciousness to research participative to research active. The second embeds a model developed for general practitioners into a broader framework of practice-academic partnership and knowledge and skills exchange, and considers external drivers and impacts on practice and patient outcomes as key elements.Results and discussionThe integration of practice and academia has been successful in building a culture of research activity within one healthcare profession in a region in the UK and has resulted, to date, in a series of research related outcomes. Understanding the key components of this partnership and the explicit strategies used has driven the implementation of the model and are discussed here.ConclusionsA strong, equitable collaboration between clinical and academic partners working towards a common outcome can enhance the use of research within the healthcare workforce and contribute actively to the research process. A set of propositions are specified to facilitate both transferability of this partnership model to other professional groups and clinical teams and evaluation of the model components.

The nature of ‘Teacher talk’ is likely to have a considerable bearing on the child’s learning but measuring the communication environment in the classroom can present challenges. One tool which does this is the Communication Supporting Classroom Observation Tool (CSCOT). Initial use suggested that it was valid and reliably used by specialists (psychologists and speech and language therapists) and special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs). A key question is whether it can be used routinely by classroom teachers and whether results coincide with those in earlier studies. CSCOT observations were carried out by teachers in 33 schools (32 Reception classrooms, 25 in Year 1 and 25 in Year 2) in two local authorities in the North East of England and teachers were asked afterwards to reflect on their experiences using the tool. Scores were in line with those in earlier studies and were consistently higher on all dimensions for reception compared to Year 2, but there was no difference between other year groups. Results were mostly consistent with the original studies. Language learning environment was higher relative to both language learning opportunities and interactions across all years (which again did not differ). There was a moderate interaction between language learning environment where scores were significantly higher in the Reception group and lower in the Year 2 group. Teachers supported the use of the CSCOT in their feedback, suggesting that CSCOT was easy to use and useful in informing practice. The CSCOT clearly has utility as a starting point in auditing classroom communication. It allows teachers to compare between classrooms and year groups and potentially fosters collaboration between teachers and specialist practitioners who focus on communication such as speech and language therapists. Further work could link the observation tool into an intervention program co-constructed with teachers.

Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) and social, emotional and behaviour difficulties (SEBD) commonly overlap, yet we know relatively little about the mechanism linking the two, specifically to what extent it is possible to reduce behaviour difficulties by targeted communication skills. The EPPI Centre systematic review methodology was applied to the intervention literature related to primary school aged children with both SLCN and SEBD. Studies were graded for study quality. Nineteen studies including 148 children met the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity was high in terms of symptoms, methodology, interventions and outcomes. All studies reported positive effects of intervention on both communication and behavioural outcomes although the majority were graded as being of relatively low quality. Despite study limitations the findings suggest that this is a promising direction of enquiry. There remain many gaps in the evidence, for example study quality needs to improve, comparative work is rare and it is difficult to use these interventions to reflect on the type of systemic classroom models of service delivery recommended for many of these children. The results have implications for both clinical practice and further research.

No abstract

This study examined the diagnostic accuracy of selected language sample measures (LSMs) with Persian-speaking children. A pre-accuracy study followed by phase I and II studies are reported. Twenty-four Persian-speaking children, aged 42 to 54 months, with primary language impairment (PLI) were compared to 27 age-matched children without PLI on a set of measures derived from play-based, conversational language samples. Results showed that correlations between age and LSMs were not statistically significant in either group of children. However, a majority of LSMs differentiated children with and without PLI at the group level (phase I), while three of the measures exhibited good diagnostic accuracy at the level of the individual (phase II). We conclude that general LSMs are promising for distinguishing between children with and without PLI. Persian-specific measures are mainly helpful in identifying children without language impairment while their ability to identify children with PLI is poor.