Objective Speech pathology has a history of low public awareness and in the absence of current research it is unclear if community awareness has changed in recent years. This study sought to explore a regional community’s awareness of speech pathology as the impetus for considering future directions pertaining to awareness and understanding of the scope of practice of this profession. Design An anonymous online survey was created using questions from previously validated surveys on this topic, and then distributed via snowball sampling using social media. Setting Data are from residents of the Central Queensland community in Australia. Participants Two hundred and seven adults who live in Central Queensland completed the survey. Main outcome measures Comparisons were drawn between the responses from this survey to those from earlier studies. Results The majority of respondents had heard of speech pathology mostly due to personal contact, but they indicated that they did not know ‘a lot’ about speech pathology. Knowledgeable individuals had higher levels of education and were better able to identify speech pathologists’ scope of practice. Personal contact with a speech pathologist also significantly contributed to self‐rated knowledge and accurate identification of scope of practice of speech pathologists. Conclusion While regional Central Queensland community members have heard of speech pathology, their self‐reported knowledge of the profession continues to be low. In order to optimise service access and consumer outcomes it is recommended that the profession aims to improve community awareness of speech pathology.

No abstract

(1) Background: This study aimed to determine the level of knowledge and the perceptions of speech pathology held by a sample of regional mental health practitioners and to explore factors that facilitate understanding of the roles of speech pathologists in mental health. While mental health is recognised as an area of practice by Speech Pathology Australia, the inclusion of speech pathologists in mental health teams is limited. (2) Methods: An anonymous online survey was created using previously validated surveys and author generated questions and distributed to mental health practitioners in Central Queensland, Australia. (3) Results: Mental health practitioners had difficulty identifying speech pathology involvement when presented with case scenarios. Accuracy was poor for language-based cases, ranging from 28.81% to 37.29%. Participants who reported having worked with a speech pathologist were more likely to demonstrate higher scores on the areas of practice questions, [r(53) = 0.301, p = 0.028], and the language scenarios [r(58) = 0.506, p < 0.001]. They were also more likely to agree to statements regarding the connection between speech pathology and mental health, r(59) = 0.527, p < 0.001. (4) Conclusions: As found in this study, contact with speech pathologists is a strong predictor of mental health providers’ knowledge of the speech pathology profession. Thus, the challenge may be to increase this contact with mental health providers to promote inclusion of speech pathologists in the mental health domain.