|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|5039091||1370310||2017||3 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود کنید|
- A recent study based on the RESTART program for treating young children who stutter is critically reviewed.
- Problems include absence of a control group, an inappropriate comparison with the Illinois Study, and a confounded criterion for classifying children as recovered.
- Suggestions are provided for controlling for untreated recovery in similar studies.
- Problems with the RESTART-study ultimately invalidates any cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis of treatments used in that study.
PurposeTo investigate the validity of findings from a recent study reported in this journal by de Sonneville-Koedoot, Bouwmans, Franken, and Stolk (2015) on the cost effectiveness of two programs for treating young children who stutter.MethodsThe de Sonneville-Koedoot, Bouwmans et al. study was based directly on the results obtained in an earlier study, known as the RESTART-study, which compared the outcomes from the Lidcombe Program and a Demands and Capacities Model program. The methodology of the RESTART-study was critically reviewed.ResultsThe absence of an untreated control group in the RESTART-study makes the results of that study uninterpretable. An inappropriate comparison made with the Yairi and Ambrose (2005) Illinois Study findings failed to resolve the control group problem. Furthermore, the criteria used to classify treated children as “non-stuttering” was also shown to be confounded. The foregoing problems meant that neither treatment program could be shown to be more effective than no treatment.Conclusionde Sonneville-Koedoot, Bouwmans et al's findings, which compared the cost effectiveness of two treatments for young children who stutter, have no value for clinical management because the treatments investigated were not shown to be more effective than no treatment.
Journal: Journal of Communication Disorders - Volume 65, JanuaryâFebruary 2017, Pages 65-67