JCPSLP Vol 22 No 1 2020

SLPs were considered a relevant subgroup in which to begin exploration of current research priorities for SLPs in health services. The aim of the current study was to identify the perceptions of Queensland SLPs on the areas of health service-related SLP practice that they consider require further research. This survey study was the first step in a larger project that aimed to collaboratively develop a list of priority research areas for SLPs working in health services in Queensland, informed by clinicians, researchers, and health service consumers. Method Data collection An online survey, developed using SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey, 2016), was distributed via SLP public email networks (including the Queensland Dysphagia Special Interest Group, the Queensland Acquired Adult Language Special Interest Group, and the national forum Speech Pathology Email Chats – SPECs Note. As SPECs is a national group, potential respondents were required to confirm that they practised in Queensland), and via the directors of SLP departments within Queensland Health. These networks were chosen because they captured a large representation of potential eligible participants. Snowball sampling was encouraged, with SLPs within each email group network requested to forward the recruitment email, containing the survey link, onto eligible colleagues. A survey was selected as the optimal data collection method for the project as it had the capability to reach a number of SLPs over a variety of workplaces and geographical settings. The first part of the online survey covered that the survey was designed for SLPs working in health services in Queensland and consent to participation. The survey took less than 5 minutes to complete. In the second part of the survey, respondents were asked to indicate the main clinical population they managed (e.g., adults, paediatrics), the nature of their workplace/facility (e.g., hospital, community), and up to three areas of their SLP practice in health services that they felt required further research. Ethical approval for the research was obtained through Metro South Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/17/QPAH/183) with ratification by The University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (2018001286/HREC/17/QPAH/183). Data analysis Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the participant characteristics. Qualitative content analysis (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004) and The Framework Method (Gale, Heath, Cameron, Rashid, & Redwood, 2013) were used to analyse the survey results. As the aim of the project was to identify the key research areas SLPs believe need further research, qualitative content analysis was selected as the analysis approach for identifying key research areas across respondents. Given the anticipated diversity of responses, the Framework Method was selected as a convenient and visually suitable method for complementing the qualitative content analysis. The participants’ responses were coded and subsequently grouped to form overarching categories and subcategories using an iterative process to develop a coding frame (Gale et al., 2013; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). The authors’ rationale for the category criteria was based on frequency and similarity of responses. When a response was not relevant to a particular category within the coding frame, it was coded as “n/a” or “not

At a broad SLP professional level, in Ireland, McKenna et al. (2010) used a Delphi technique (Watson et al., 2008), to identify general SLP research priorities with 41 SLPs (18 academics and 23 clinicians). Overall 20 priorities were generated with five key themes: evaluating therapy interventions (50% – e.g., outcome measures and evaluation), service delivery (20% – e.g., broad practice areas), experience of service users (15% – e.g., client/ carer views about communication and swallowing), health promotion (10% – e.g., early intervention and training), and support for research (5% – e.g., capacity building) (McKenna et al., 2010). It is therefore timely that the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists is currently undertaking a prioritisation process to identify 10 research priorities for the following areas: dysphagia, learning disabilities, language disorders and aphasia (see www.rcslt. org/members/research_centre/research_priorities/RCSLT). In 2010, Speech Pathology Australia (SPA) published an evidence-based practice (EBP) position paper that stated the inclusion of clinicians in research agenda-setting is important to both meet clinical needs and to contribute to EBP (SPA, 2010). However, no adjunct guidelines were subsequently developed to identify the research priority areas for practising SLPs in Australia. To date, there has been limited research into developing research agendas for Australian researchers. The development of research agendas within the SLP field in Australia has specifically focused on communication disability (e.g., Rose, Ferguson, Power, Togher & Worrall, 2014; Worrall & Hickson, 2008). Worrall and Hickson (2008) described the application of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to SLP research and presented a call for action for more SLP research in the context of the ICF. As part of a nation-wide survey of Australian SLPs working with people with aphasia, Rose et al. (2014) asked respondents to list high priority research questions. The identified research priorities covered a range of areas, including culturally appropriate treatment for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) patients, combining impairment and functional treatment, and using principles of neuroplasticity (Rose et al., 2014). Given the minimal work in prioritised research agendas within an Australian context, and focus of research to date being related to a specific subgroup of clinical practice, it is important that further local work is undertaken to explore the specific nature of research priority areas for the Australian SLP profession. Ultimately this will help to drive local research priority goals. However, as more countries and international services explore their own needs, this work will also help establish greater understanding of the most globally pertinent research issues. The context explored within the current study was that of SLPs working in health services within Queensland, Australia. Queensland is the second largest state in Australia with the third largest population, and employs 19.6% of the Australian SLP workforce (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019; Health Workforce Australia, 2014). Health services are one of the largest employers of SLP services in Australia (Health Workforce Australia, 2014). The public health service within Queensland has been proactive for the past decade investing in clinical research positions and establishing organisational policy to help develop a research-engaged professional workforce (Hulcombe, Sturgess, Souvlis & Fitzgerald, 2014; Wenke et al., 2017), as well driving agendas for clinical practice change and innovation (Queensland Health, 2017). Hence, Queensland

From the top: Kirstine Shrubsole, Bena Brown,

Petrea Cornwell, Anne E. Hill and Annie J. Hill

23

JCPSLP Volume 22, Number 1 2020

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au