Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
Date Submitted: Mar 31, 2021
Date Accepted: Nov 22, 2021
Date Submitted to PubMed: Jan 6, 2022
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Exploring Speech and Language practitioners’ use of commercially available Voice Assisted Technology: a web-based survey
ABSTRACT
Background:
Speech and Language therapy involves identification, assessment and treatment of children and adults who have difficulties with communication, eating, drinking and swallowing. Globally, pressing needs outstrip availability of qualified practitioners who, of necessity, focus on advanced needs. The potential of Voice Assisted Technology to assist in early stages of disability has been recognised but professional adoption is unclear.
Objective:
To clarify the current adoption and future potential of Voice Assisted Technology in Speech and Language Therapy.
Methods:
We devised, tested and implemented a national web-based survey of technology awareness and level of engagement with Voice Assisted Technology amongst the Speech and Language Therapy professional community.
Results:
A total of 230 responses from UK-based professionals covered the full range of clinical practice to address the needs of people with communication and swallowing difficulties. They were well aware of recent consumer technology but so far, only 21% had used it in their professional practice: some (n=49) shared their current experience, with over half (31/49; 63.2%) using technology to assist their clients with common technical tasks such as web browsing, setting up reminders, sending messages or emails and playing music or videos. Some early adopters (16/49; 32.6%) reported improved independence of their clients; a similar number (15/49; 30.6%) reported increased communication and engagement with the community. A few (6/49; 12.2%) reported increased confidence and self-esteem. Interestingly, the same number reported improved speech of their clients. Reasons for non-use included lack of opportunity and shortage of training in the area. Some respondents (51/175; 29.1%) recognise that technology can enhance the accessibility of their clients to relevant information and give them more control over their environment.
Conclusions:
Voice Assisted Technology is used by some UK-based Speech and Language Therapists to enable communication tasks in the home. Wider adoption of Voice Assisted Technology is limited by lack of professional opportunity. Looking forward, additional benefit is promised as the data shows a level of engagement, empowerment and the possibility to achieve therapeutic outcomes, in early stages of communication impairment. The disparate responses suggest this area is ripe for development of evidence based clinical practice, starting with clear definition, outcome measurement and working towards professional standardisation.
Citation
