JCPSLP Vol 23 Issue 2 2021

Implementation science

Around the journals

Elizabeth Cole Denman, D., Wilson, N. J., Munro, N., Kim, J.-H., Speyer, R., & Cordier, R. (2021). Factors influencing speech- language pathologists’ application of terminology for describing pediatric language assessments . Communication Disorders Quarterly , 42 (4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740120915176 Chu, S. Y., Hara, Y., Wong, C. H., Higashikawa, M., McConnell, G. E., & Lim, A. (2021). Exploring attitudes about evidence-based practice among speech- language pathologists: A survey of Japan and Malaysia . International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2021. 1877816 I would like to highlight two papers in regard to implementation science. The studies chosen, one conducted in Australia (Denman et al., 2020) and the other in East Asia focusing on the countries of Japan and Malaysia (Chu et al., 2021), help provide a wider view of approaches to implementation science and the extent to which research is successfully implemented in the given environments. The first paper—Denman et al. (2020)—drew on past research to acknowledge current difficulties within paediatric language assessments including lack of consistent terminology (Roulstone, 2015; Walsh & IGOTF- CSD, 2006), ambiguity and terminology being used interchangeably or having multiple interpretations (Cowie et al., 2001), resulting in potential for negative outcomes in reflective thinking (Caty et al., 2015, Mann et al., 2009), data collection (Cowie et al., 2001) and medico- legal situations (Cameron & Turtle-Song, 2002). The two main purposes of the study were to identify: (a) SLPs’ perceptions regarding factors that influence the application of taxonomy and (b) strategies to support future use of taxonomy in paediatric language assessments. The study used qualitative research methods and drew results from semi structured interviews of 13 participants that were analysed and summarised thematically. The main themes to arise from this study were that applying the taxonomy is arduous, and that both contextual factors and a clinician’s knowledge and experience may influence application of taxonomy. Strategies suggested for implementation included two categories: those that developed the SLPs’ understanding of taxonomy and those that facilitated the use of taxonomy within assessment practices. Research on implementation science was considered when analysing strategies including acknowledging the complex nature of implementing new knowledge (Flottorp et al., 2013, Wandersman et al., 2008), time taken for its adoption into mainstream practice, and the need for repeated exposure

to materials for people to become more competent with them (Birmann, 2000). This study provides a clear and sophisticated analysis of the data that supports integration of taxonomy into routine practice. The second paper—Chu et al. (2021)—investigated attitudes towards EBP in Japan and Malaysia using a 38-item online questionnaire. Demographic information collected included years of employment, highest education level, gender, age, current work settings, caseload, type of employment and sector. Quantitative research methods via a 5-point Likert scale was then used to collect data on perceptions, training experiences, resources, barriers and training needs of SLPs in both countries. All participants recognised the need for EBP; however, Malaysian SLPs showed more positive attitudes than Japanese SLPs. Barriers to EBP identified by >90% of all participants (across both countries) were in training needs, and included financial support to attend workshops, free access to online journal articles and EBP mentoring. The study drew on research by Colquhoun et al. (2017) and Olswang and Goldstein (2017) in suggesting a multifaceted approach to implementation strategies and ongoing collaboration between clinicians and researchers to guide implementation of EBP. It was advised that workplaces support clinicians for ongoing training needs and that academic institutions include teaching units on application of EBP. Limitations that could be suggested of this study is that it did not make reference to implementation science research when referring to strategies for further integration of EBP nor did it seek to explore potential barriers to some of the suggestions given. However, as one of the first of such studies in this region, it does provide a framework for future research where the specifics of proposed changes could be investigated, further perhaps through qualitative research methods. Lindy McAllister Cunningham, B. J., & Oram Cardy, J. (2020). Using implementation science to engage stakeholders and improve outcome measurement in a preschool speech-language service system . Speech, Language and Hearing , 23 (1), 17–24. Fulcher-Rood, K., Castilla-Earls, A., & Higginbotham, J. (2020). What does evidence-based practice mean to you? A follow-up study examining school-based speech-language pathologists’ perspectives on evidence-based practice . American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 29 (2), 688–704. I reviewed two implementation science papers. The first (Cunningham & Cardy, 2020) aimed to support implementation by SLPs of new assessment tools and outcomes measures

Elizabeth Cole top) and Lindy McAllister

104

JCPSLP Volume 23, Number 2 2021

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology