{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032756489493201486, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008034610630407911, 'mean_word_length': 6.13215859030837, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Drooling in children with neurodisability: A survey of Australian speech–language pathologists’ practice

Abstract Purpose: In the absence of evidence-based guidelines, this study sought to understand current speech-language pathologists’ (SLPs) practice when treating drooling in children with a neurodisability. Method: Descriptive research using cross-sectional survey methodology. Online survey methods were used to obtain specific information on Australian SLPs’ self-reported assessment and treatment practices relative to working with children with neurodisability who drool. Questions focussed on level of expertise, treatment approaches and barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) in this area. Participants were sourced through three targeted associations/organisations. Data were analysed using descriptive and non-parametric statistics. Result: Participants were Australian SLPs who had recent experience working with children with neurodisability who drool (n = 68). They favoured informal rather than formal methods for assessment. Preferred treatment techniques included behavioural intervention methods (46–53%) and modifying positioning (43.3%). Client suitability dominated reasoning regarding treatment selection (60%) with 57% of SLPs reporting EBP barriers. Conclusion: Drooling was perceived to be a complex practice area for which SLPs desire additional education. Despite availability, valid and reliable assessments of drooling were not commonly used. Clinicians have limited evidence to support their practice: further research is needed to establish evidence-based treatments for drooling.