JCPSLP Vol 22 No 1 2020

specified” (as per Gale et al., 2013). For example, responses that did not relate to the category of “area of communication or swallowing” were coded “n/a” for this category. Due to the complexity of responses, the majority of responses were mapped to more than one category. This was also done to ensure all the response elements were captured equally within the coding frame. For example, the response “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) speech and language assessment” was coded to the categories of “area of communication or swallowing” (subcategory “speech”, subcategory “language), “aspect of service provision” (subcategory “assessment”), and “emerging specialised areas of practice/expanded scope of practice” (subcategory “ATSI population”). One author (KS) developed the coding frame and this was discussed with the lead author (EF) prior to full data analysis. KS and EF completed the initial coding and maintained inter-coder reliability by double checking the coding and reaching consensus where disparity was present. It was then sent out to the wider team for review. Results Participant demographics In total, 63 SLPs commenced the survey; however, only 47 completed all information. An exact response rate is unable to be computed for this study, as the number of SLPs who received access to the survey link is unknown, online “link-to-completion” metrics were not captured, and snowball sampling was employed. Exact figures for the actual number of clinicians working in health (public or private) services within Queensland is also unknown; however, it can be safely stated that the response rate for the survey was low. The majority of the respondents worked in adult and paediatric hospitals (n = 34, 72%), with the remaining SLPs working in community services (n = 6, 12%), mental health services (n = 2, 4%), university clinics (n = 2, 4%) and private practice (n = 3, 6%). Almost half of the SLPs worked with adult clients only (n = 23, 49%), followed closely by those who worked with paediatric clients (n = 22, 47%), with 2 (4%) working with both adult and paediatric clients. Priority areas The responses from the survey were coded and divided into categories. Within each category, priorities were grouped by subcategories. All SLPs listed at least one priority area. One SLP listed 1 priority area, 46 SLPs listed 2 priority areas, and 40 SLPs listed 3 priority areas. A total of 133 codes were analysed. The codes were then grouped into nine categories: (a) age group; (b) aetiology; (c) area of communication or swallowing; (d) aspect of service provision; (e) service delivery model or approach; (f) professional level; (g) emerging specialised areas of practice/expanded scope of practice; (h) outcomes and research questions; and (i) place of service (see Table 1). Many of the participants’ responses were coded under multiple categories; therefore, several of the categories overlap. The category “age group” had the highest number of responses that included the adult clinical population, followed by paediatrics, and adolescents. The remaining responses (n = 16) did not specify a particular population group. The majority of the participants did not identify specific aetiologies; however, when specification did occur, 15 different aetiologies from hypoxic brain injury to

mental health and developmental language disorders were reported. A broad range of areas related to “communication and swallowing” were also captured, with approximately 70% of responses coded to this category (Appendix 1). The category “aspect of service provision” covered 10 areas of SLP service provision ranging from traditional areas such as assessment and therapy/ treatment/ rehabilitation, through to staff training or education. Interventions, captured by the subcategory “therapy, treatment, rehabilitation’, featured prominently with 50 responses in the subcategory. The fifth category identified on the list of research priorities was “service delivery models and approaches”. Subcategories highlighted under this category included telehealth, early intervention/timing of intervention/intensity of intervention, allied health assistants, and hospital-wide screening. The category of “professional level” had a limited number of specific responses (approximately 93% of responses were not coded within this category). The nine responses coded within this category fell into the categories of SLP students, new graduate SLPs, and SLPs’ clinical skill development in multidisciplinary teams. Twenty-nine responses were coded to “emerging specialised areas of practice/expanded scope of practice”. A variety of subcategories were recognised in the responses to this category including CALD patients, the role of an SLP, clinical education, counselling, and equitable access to services. Within the category of “outcomes and research questions”, approximately 64% of responses were not specific to a particular outcome or research question. Of those responses that produced specific subcategories, 54% of SLPs were concerned with effectiveness of, and evidence for, an approach. Other subcategories included outcomes related to a specific approach, impact, parent/ carer satisfaction, and achieving patient goals. Two of the responses addressed outcome measure selection and one response focused on patient compliance. The ninth category concentrated on “place of service”. Similar to the previous categories, the majority of responses did not provide a specific subcategory. The three SLPs that referred to a specific location proposed residential aged care facilities, hospital and neonatal intensive care units (NICU). Discussion The Queensland SLPs surveyed identified a range of research priorities from which nine categories emerged. Consistent with previous international SLP research prioritisation lists (e.g., McKenna et al., 2010), in the present study (within the category “aspect of service provision”) SLPs identified a need for further intervention work in a range of specific SLP areas (such as dysphagia rehabilitation). This suggests that there is a high demand globally for further research into interventions within specific areas of SLP practice. A second element common to previous SLP prioritisation research (e.g., McKenna et al., 2010) was the category of “service delivery model or approach”. It is recognised that service delivery models and approaches are a major challenge to the SLP workforce in Australia – as internationally – particularly given the strain on funding and resources within healthcare (Ward, 2019). Of the remaining seven categories, the category “emerging specialised areas of practice/expanded scope of practice” has not previously been identified by SLPs as a research priority in international research. The current findings reflect an awareness of QLD SLPs’ pressing need to focus on service redesign (i.e., models of care and

From the top: Tania Hobson, Tanya Rose and Nerina Scarinci

24

JCPSLP Volume 22, Number 1 2020

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology