The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson's disease: the PD COMM RCT.
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
DATA ANALYSIS
DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE
DYSARTHRIA
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
IDIOPATHIC PARKINSON’S DISEASE
LEE SILVERMAN VOICE TREATMENT
NORMALISATION PROCESS THEORY
PROCESS EVALUATION
QUALITY OF LIFE DYSARTHRIA
QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS REHABILITATION
RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
REHABILITATION
SOCIAL THEORY
SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPIST
SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2024
Oct 2024
Historique:
medline:
4
10
2024
pubmed:
4
10
2024
entrez:
4
10
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Speech impairments are common with Parkinson's disease (reported prevalence 68%), increasing conversational demands, reliance on family and social withdrawal. The PD COMM trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD and National Health Service speech and language therapy for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with Parkinson's disease to no speech and language therapy (control) and against each other. PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to control, National Health Service speech and language therapy or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations were conducted. United Kingdom outpatient and home settings. People with idiopathic Parkinson's disease, with self-reported or carer-reported speech or voice problems. We excluded people with dementia, laryngeal pathology and those within 24 months of previous speech and language therapy. The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD intervention included maximum effort drills and high-effort speech production tasks delivered over four 50-minute therapist-led personalised sessions per week, for 4 weeks with prescribed daily home practice. National Health Service speech and language therapy content and dosage reflected local non-Lee Silverman Voice Treatment speech and language therapy practices, usually 1 hour, once weekly, for 6 weeks. Trained, experienced speech and language therapists or assistants provided interventions. The control was no speech and language therapy until the trial was completed. Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes: Voice Handicap Index subscales, Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5L; ICEpop Capabilities Measure for Older Adults; Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire - Carers; resource utilisation; and adverse events. Assessments were completed pre-randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Three hundred and eighty-eight participants were randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD ( The number of participants recruited to the trial did not meet the pre-specified power. People that had access to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD described a significantly greater reduction in the impact of their Parkinson's disease-related speech problems 3 months after randomisation compared to people that had no speech and language therapy. There was no evidence of a difference between National Health Service speech and language therapy and those that received no speech and language therapy. Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD resulted in a significantly lower impact of voice problems compared to National Health Service speech and language therapy 3 months after randomisation which was still present after 12 months; however, Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was not found to be cost-effective. Implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in the National Health Service and identifying alternatives to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD for those who cannot tolerate it. Investigation of less costly alternative options for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment delivery require investigation, with economic evaluation using a preference-based outcome measure that captures improvement in communication. This study is registered as ISRCTN12421382. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/135/02) and is published in full in Most people with Parkinson’s disease develop difficulties with their speech and voice. Communicating becomes difficult. This affects their relationships, work, social life and how they feel about themselves. Our PD COMM trial compared two types of speech and language therapy to find out if they helped the speech and voice problems people with Parkinson’s have. We measured changes in the way their voice and speech problems affected their lives and how much therapy cost the National Health Service and families. Everyone taking part had speech or voice problems because of their Parkinson’s disease. People could not take part if they had dementia, evidence of laryngeal pathology or previous laryngeal surgery or received speech and therapy for Parkinson’s disease in the last 2 years. People who agreed to take part joined one of three groups, which were alike except for the therapy they received. A computer decided which group they joined by chance. National Health Service speech and language therapy Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD No speech and language therapy for 12 months The 388 people who took part came from 41 outpatient clinics in Scotland, England and Wales. Most were older men. The people that received Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD felt better about their speech and voice after 3 months compared to people in the other groups. A year later, they still felt better about it. People that received National Health Service therapy had no benefit compared to people with no access to therapy. Analysis of cost-effectiveness indicated that Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD did not offer value for money and the intervention cost more because more speech and language therapy time was needed to deliver it. Our next question is to ask how we can provide Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in a way that costs less, for example, using therapy assistants and computer packages or at home. Clear speech and language therapy approaches for people with Parkinson’s disease and speech or voice problems should be tested in trials that measure changes in people’s lives.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Speech impairments are common with Parkinson's disease (reported prevalence 68%), increasing conversational demands, reliance on family and social withdrawal.
Objective(s)
UNASSIGNED
The PD COMM trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD and National Health Service speech and language therapy for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with Parkinson's disease to no speech and language therapy (control) and against each other.
Design
UNASSIGNED
PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to control, National Health Service speech and language therapy or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations were conducted.
Setting
UNASSIGNED
United Kingdom outpatient and home settings.
Participants
UNASSIGNED
People with idiopathic Parkinson's disease, with self-reported or carer-reported speech or voice problems. We excluded people with dementia, laryngeal pathology and those within 24 months of previous speech and language therapy.
Interventions
UNASSIGNED
The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD intervention included maximum effort drills and high-effort speech production tasks delivered over four 50-minute therapist-led personalised sessions per week, for 4 weeks with prescribed daily home practice. National Health Service speech and language therapy content and dosage reflected local non-Lee Silverman Voice Treatment speech and language therapy practices, usually 1 hour, once weekly, for 6 weeks. Trained, experienced speech and language therapists or assistants provided interventions. The control was no speech and language therapy until the trial was completed.
Main outcome measures
UNASSIGNED
Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes: Voice Handicap Index subscales, Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5L; ICEpop Capabilities Measure for Older Adults; Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire - Carers; resource utilisation; and adverse events. Assessments were completed pre-randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Three hundred and eighty-eight participants were randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD (
Limitations
UNASSIGNED
The number of participants recruited to the trial did not meet the pre-specified power.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
People that had access to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD described a significantly greater reduction in the impact of their Parkinson's disease-related speech problems 3 months after randomisation compared to people that had no speech and language therapy. There was no evidence of a difference between National Health Service speech and language therapy and those that received no speech and language therapy. Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD resulted in a significantly lower impact of voice problems compared to National Health Service speech and language therapy 3 months after randomisation which was still present after 12 months; however, Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was not found to be cost-effective.
Future work
UNASSIGNED
Implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in the National Health Service and identifying alternatives to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD for those who cannot tolerate it. Investigation of less costly alternative options for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment delivery require investigation, with economic evaluation using a preference-based outcome measure that captures improvement in communication.
Study registration
UNASSIGNED
This study is registered as ISRCTN12421382.
Funding
UNASSIGNED
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/135/02) and is published in full in
Most people with Parkinson’s disease develop difficulties with their speech and voice. Communicating becomes difficult. This affects their relationships, work, social life and how they feel about themselves. Our PD COMM trial compared two types of speech and language therapy to find out if they helped the speech and voice problems people with Parkinson’s have. We measured changes in the way their voice and speech problems affected their lives and how much therapy cost the National Health Service and families. Everyone taking part had speech or voice problems because of their Parkinson’s disease. People could not take part if they had dementia, evidence of laryngeal pathology or previous laryngeal surgery or received speech and therapy for Parkinson’s disease in the last 2 years. People who agreed to take part joined one of three groups, which were alike except for the therapy they received. A computer decided which group they joined by chance. National Health Service speech and language therapy Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD No speech and language therapy for 12 months The 388 people who took part came from 41 outpatient clinics in Scotland, England and Wales. Most were older men. The people that received Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD felt better about their speech and voice after 3 months compared to people in the other groups. A year later, they still felt better about it. People that received National Health Service therapy had no benefit compared to people with no access to therapy. Analysis of cost-effectiveness indicated that Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD did not offer value for money and the intervention cost more because more speech and language therapy time was needed to deliver it. Our next question is to ask how we can provide Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in a way that costs less, for example, using therapy assistants and computer packages or at home. Clear speech and language therapy approaches for people with Parkinson’s disease and speech or voice problems should be tested in trials that measure changes in people’s lives.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Most people with Parkinson’s disease develop difficulties with their speech and voice. Communicating becomes difficult. This affects their relationships, work, social life and how they feel about themselves. Our PD COMM trial compared two types of speech and language therapy to find out if they helped the speech and voice problems people with Parkinson’s have. We measured changes in the way their voice and speech problems affected their lives and how much therapy cost the National Health Service and families. Everyone taking part had speech or voice problems because of their Parkinson’s disease. People could not take part if they had dementia, evidence of laryngeal pathology or previous laryngeal surgery or received speech and therapy for Parkinson’s disease in the last 2 years. People who agreed to take part joined one of three groups, which were alike except for the therapy they received. A computer decided which group they joined by chance. National Health Service speech and language therapy Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD No speech and language therapy for 12 months The 388 people who took part came from 41 outpatient clinics in Scotland, England and Wales. Most were older men. The people that received Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD felt better about their speech and voice after 3 months compared to people in the other groups. A year later, they still felt better about it. People that received National Health Service therapy had no benefit compared to people with no access to therapy. Analysis of cost-effectiveness indicated that Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD did not offer value for money and the intervention cost more because more speech and language therapy time was needed to deliver it. Our next question is to ask how we can provide Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in a way that costs less, for example, using therapy assistants and computer packages or at home. Clear speech and language therapy approaches for people with Parkinson’s disease and speech or voice problems should be tested in trials that measure changes in people’s lives.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicenter Study
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-141Références
GBDPsD Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of Parkinson’s disease, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:939–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30295-3
GBDNDC Group. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Neurol 2017;16:877–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30299-5
Kalinderi K, Bostantjopoulou S, Fidani L. The genetic background of Parkinson’s disease: current progress and future prospects. Acta Neurol Scand 2016;134:314–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12563
Bellou V, Belbasis L, Tzoulaki I, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016;23:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.12.008
Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Schrag A, Rizos A, Chaudhuri KR, Martinez-Martin P, Weintraub D. Prevalence of non-motor symptoms and non-motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease using the MDS-NMS. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2021;8:231–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13122
Barone P, Antonini A, Colosimo C, Marconi R, Morgante L, Avarello TP, et al.; PRIAMO Study Group. The PRIAMO study: a multicenter assessment of nonmotor symptoms and their impact on quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2009;24:1641–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.22643
Lawton M, Ben-Shlomo Y, May MT, Baig F, Barber TR, Klein JC, et al. Developing and validating Parkinson’s disease subtypes and their motor and cognitive progression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2018;89:1279–87. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2018-318337
Vijiaratnam N, Simuni T, Bandmann O, Morris HR, Foltynie T. Progress towards therapies for disease modification in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol 2021;20:559–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00061-2
Group PDMC, Gray R, Ives N, Rick C, Patel S, Gray A, et al. Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson’s disease (PD MED): a large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial. Lancet 2014;384:1196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60683-8
Parkinson’s Disease in Adults: Diagnosis and Management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2017. NICE guideline no. 71. URL: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK447153/
Kalf JG, de Swart BJM, Bloem BR, Munneke M. Prevalence of speech impairments in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Mov Disord 2009;24:S528.
Miller N, Allcock L, Jones D, Noble E, Hildreth AJ, Burn DJ. Prevalence and pattern of perceived intelligibility changes in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007;78:1188–90. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2006.110171
Hartelius L, Svensson P. Speech and swallowing symptoms associated with Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis: a survey. Folia Phoniatr Logop 1994;46:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1159/000266286
Miller N, Noble E, Jones D, Burn D. Life with communication changes in Parkinson’s disease. Age Ageing 2006;35:235–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afj053
Pell MD, Cheang HS, Leonard CL. The impact of Parkinson’s disease on vocal-prosodic communication from the perspective of listeners. Brain Lang 2006;97:123–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.08.010
Barnish MS, Horton SMC, Butterfint ZR, Clark AB, Atkinson RA, Deane KHO. Speech and communication in Parkinson’s disease: a cross-sectional exploratory study in the UK. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014642. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014642
Yorkston K, Baylor C, Britton D. Speech versus speaking: the experiences of people with Parkinson’s disease and implications for intervention. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2017;26:561–8. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0087
Heberlein I, Vierrege P. The influence of speech disturbances on quality of life and coping strategies on Parkinson’s disease patients. Forum Logopadie 2005;19:26–31.
Miller N. Communication changes in Parkinson’s disease. Pract Neurol 2017;17:266–74. https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2017-001635
LR G. LSVT Loud. LSVT Global; 2021. URL: www.lsvtglobal.com/LSVTLoud (accessed 20 December 2021).
Swales M, Theodoros D, Hill AJ, Russell T. Communication service provision and access for people with Parkinson’s disease in Australia: a national survey of speech-language pathologists. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2019;21:572–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1537372
Miller N, Deane KH, Jones D, Noble E, Gibb C. National survey of speech and language therapy provision for people with Parkinson’s disease in the United Kingdom: therapists’ practices. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2011;46:189–201. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682822.2010.484849
Collis J, Bloch S. Survey of UK speech and language therapists’ assessment and treatment practices for people with progressive dysarthria. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2012;47:725–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00183.x
Miller N, Bloch S. A survey of speech-language therapy provision for people with post-stroke dysarthria in the UK. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2017;52:800–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12316
Proffitt R. Home exercise programs for adults with neurological injuries: a survey. Am J Occup Ther 2016;70:7003290020p1–8. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.019729
LSVT Global store. LSVT Global. URL: www.lsvtglobal.com/store/IdaStoreLSVT (accessed 27 September 2022).
Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients with Parkinson’s Disease. Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Equality: Institute of Health Sciences of Aragon; 2014.
Guidelines for Speech-language Therapy in Parkinson’s Disease. Nijmegen: Parkinson Net/National Parkinson Foundation (NPF); 2011.
Herd CP, Tomlinson CL, Deane KH, Brady MC, Smith CH, Sackley CM, Clarke CE. Speech and language therapy versus placebo or no intervention for speech problems in Parkinson’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;2012:CD002812. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002812.pub2
Herd CP, Tomlinson CL, Deane KH, Brady MC, Smith CH, Sackley CM, Clarke CE. Comparison of speech and language therapy techniques for speech problems in Parkinson’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;2012:CD002814. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002814.pub2
Linares-Del Rey M, Vela-Desojo L, Cano-de la Cuerda R. Mobile phone applications in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Neurologia (Engl Ed) 2019;34:38–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2017.03.006
Pu T, Huang M, Kong X, Wang M, Chen X, Feng X, et al. Lee Silverman voice treatment to improve speech in Parkinson’s disease: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Parkinsons Dis 2021;2021:3366870. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3366870
van de Wetering-van Dongen VA, Kalf JG, van der Wees PJ, Bloem BR, Nijkrake MJ. The effects of respiratory training in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. J Parkinson’s Dis 2020;10:1315–33.
Xu H, Bao Z, Liang D, Li M, Wei M, Ge X, et al. Speech and language therapy for voice problems in Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2020;32:344–51. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.19020044
Yuan F, Guo X, Wei X, Xie F, Zheng J, Huang Y, et al. Lee Silverman voice treatment for dysarthria in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol 2020;27:1957–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.14399
Sackley CM, Smith CH, Rick CE, Brady MC, Ives N, Patel S, et al.; PD COMM Pilot Collaborative Group. Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomised controlled trial (PD COMM pilot). Pilot Feasibility Stud 2018;4:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-017-0222-z
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Clinical Guidelines. London: Routledge; 2005.
Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. Communicating Quality 3: RCSLT’s Guidance on Best Practice in Service Organisation and Provision. London: Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists; 2006.
Gibb WR, Lees AJ. The relevance of the Lewy body to the pathogenesis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1988;51:745–52.
Ramig LO, Countryman S, Thompson LL, Horii Y. Comparison of two forms of intensive speech treatment for Parkinson disease. J Speech Hear Res 1995;38:1232–51.
Ramig LO, Sapir S, Countryman S, Pawlas AA, O’Brien C, Hoehn M, Thompson LL. Intensive voice treatment (LSVT) for patients with Parkinson’s disease: a 2 year follow up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71:493–8.
Hodkinson HM. Evaluation of a mental test score for assessment of mental impairment in the elderly. 1972. Age Ageing 2012;41(Suppl 3):iii35–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afs148
Spielman J, Ramig LO, Mahler L, Halpern A, Gavin WJ. Effects of an extended version of the Lee Silverman voice treatment on voice and speech in Parkinson’s disease. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2007;16:95–107. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2007/014)
Hustad KC. The relationship between listener comprehension and intelligibility scores for speakers with dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008;51:562–73. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/040)
Robertson SJ, Thomson F. Speech therapy in Parkinson’s disease: a study of the efficacy ad long term effects of intensive treatment. Br J Disord Commun 1984;19:213–24.
Johnson JA, Pring TR. Speech therapy and Parkinson’s disease: a review and further data. Br J Disord Commun 1990;25:183–94.
Scott S, Caird FI. Speech therapy for Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1983;46:140–4.
Scott S, Caird FI. The response of the apparent receptive speech disorder of Parkinson’s disease to speech therapy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1984;47:302–4.
Scott S, Caird FI. Speech therapy for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981;283:1088.
Lang AE, Fishbein V. The ‘pacing board’ in selected speech disorders of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1983;46:789.
Healey V. A comparison of the efficacy of two methods of rate control in the speech of people with Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s News: A Quarterly Bulletin for Health and Social Care Professionals 2006;1:6–7.
Adams SG, Lang AE. Can the Lombard effect be used to improve low voice intensity in Parkinson’s disease? Eur J Disord Commun 1992;27:121–7.
Schulz GM, Grant MK. Effects of speech therapy and pharmacologic and surgical treatments on voice and speech in Parkinson’s disease: a review of the literature. J Commun Disord 2000;33:59–88.
Rousseau B, Watts C. Susceptibility of speakers with Parkinson disease to delayed feedback. J Med Speech-Lang Patholo 2002;10:41–9.
de Swart BJ, Willemse SC, Maassen BA, Horstink MW. Improvement of voicing in patients with Parkinson’s disease by speech therapy. Neurology 2003;60:498–500.
An M, Dusing SC, Harbourne RT, Sheridan SM, Consortium ST-P. What really works in intervention? Using fidelity measures to support optimal outcomes. Phys Ther 2020;100:757–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa006
Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, Silbergleit A, Jacobson G, Benninger MS, Newman CW. The voice handicap index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol 1997;6:66–70.
Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, Greenhall R, Hyman N. The Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): development and validation of a Parkinson’s disease summary index score. Age Ageing 1997;26:353–7.
Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R. PDQ-39: a review of the development, validation and application of a Parkinson’s disease quality of life questionnaire and its associated measures. J Neurol 1998;245(Suppl 1):S10–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00007730
Hartelius L, Elmberg M, Holm R, Lovberg AS, Nikolaidis S. Living with dysarthria: evaluation of a self-report questionnaire. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2008;60:11–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000111799
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 2008;67:874–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.015
Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 1967;17:427–42.
Jenkinson C, Dummett S, Kelly L, Peters M, Dawson J, Morley D, Fitzpatrick R. The development and validation of a quality of life measure for the carers of people with Parkinson’s disease (the PDQ-Carer). Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2012;18:483–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2012.01.007
de Lau LM, Breteler MM. Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:525–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70471-9
PD COMM Protocol Versions. URL: www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/bctu/trials/pd/PD-COMM/investigators/documentation.aspx (accessed 29 September 2022).
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258
Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002.
Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J, Team RS. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 2006;332:413–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413
Bonell C, Fletcher A, Morton M, Lorenc T, Moore L. Realist randomised controlled trials: a new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Soc Sci Med 2012;75:2299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.032
May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci 2009;4:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-29
Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, et al. Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med 2010;8:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-63
May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, et al. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7:148. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-148
Masterson-Algar P, Burton CR, Brady MC, Nicoll A, Clarke CE, Rick C, et al. The PD COMM trial: a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial assessing the effectiveness of two types of SLT for people with Parkinson’s disease. Trials 2017;18:397. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2130-1
Finch TL, Girling M, May CR, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, et al. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 2 – validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT). BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0591-x
Schwarzer R, Jerusalem, M. Generalized Self-efficacy Scale. In: Weinman SW, Johnston M, editor. Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Windsor: NFER-NELSON; 1995:35–7.
Global L. LSVT Skills Checklist 2018. URL: https://lcc17.lsvtglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/LSVT-LOUD-Skills-Checklist_04-18.pdf (accessed 27 September 2022).
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitat Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
National Job Profiles. URL: www.nhsemployers.org/articles/national-job-profiles (accessed 27 September 2022).
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687
Voice Meter Pro. URL: https://dragonflyapps.com/voice-meter-pro/ (accessed 27 September 2022).
DAF PRO. URL: https://speechtools.co/daf-pro (accessed 27 September 2022).
Bla Bla Bla. URL: https://speechtools.co/daf-pro (accessed 27 September 2022).
ClaroCom. URL: www.clarosoftware.com/portfolio/clarocom/ (accessed 27 September 2022).
Voice Analyst. URL:www.parkinsons.org.uk/information-and-support/voice-analyst (accessed 27 September 2022).
Parkinsons UK Apps. URL:www.parkinsons.org.uk/information-and-support/apps-and-devices-parkinsons (accessed 27 September 2022).
Decibel 10. URL: https://skypaw.com/decibel10.html (accessed 27 September 2022).
Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2013.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II good practices task Force. Value Health 2022;25:10–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008
Scobie S, Jowett S, Lambe T, Patel S, Woolley R, Ives N, et al. Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2021;7:154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00888-y
NICE. Position Statement on Use of the EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England. 2019. www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/technology-appraisal-guidance/eq-5d-5l (accessed 3 February 2020).
van Hout B, Janssen M, Fau-Feng Y-S, Feng YS, Fau-Kohlmann T, Kohlmann T, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15(5):708-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.2008
Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med 2006;62:1891–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.023
Flynn TN, Chan P, Coast J, Peters TJ. Assessing quality of life among British older people using the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) measure. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2011;9:317–29. https://doi.org/10.2165/11594150-000000000-00000
Shah KK, Murtagh FEM, McGeechan K, Crail S, Burns A, Tran AD, Morton RL. Health-related quality of life and well-being in people over 75 years of age with end-stage kidney disease managed with dialysis or comprehensive conservative care: a cross-sectional study in the UK and Australia. BMJ Open 2019;9:e027776. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027776
Flynn TN, Huynh E, Peters TJ, Al-Janabi H, Clemens S, Moody A, Coast J. Scoring the Icecap – a capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Econ 2015;24:258–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3014
Mitchell PM, Roberts TE, Barton PM, Coast J. Assessing sufficient capability: a new approach to economic evaluation. Soc Sci Med 2015;139:71–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.06.037
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2020. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent. Canterbury: University of Kent; 2020. https://doi.org/10.22024/UniKent/01.02.84818
Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed 14 December 2021).
NHS National Schedule of Reference Costs 2019/20. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/publication/2019-20-national-cost-collection-data-publication/ (accessed 7 December 2021).
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Krol M, Brouwer W. How to estimate productivity costs in economic evaluations. PharmacoEcon 2014;32:335–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0132-3
Schulpher MJ. The Role and Estimation of Productivity Costs in Economic Evaluation. In: Drummond M, Alistair MA, editors. Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001:94–112.
Office for National Statistics. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. 2020. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2020 (accessed 23 February 2022).
Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEcon 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3
Rubin DB, Schenker N. Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med 1991;10:585–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780100410
Barber JA, Thompson SG. Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: review of published studies. BMJ 1998;317:1195–200. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1195
Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944
Glick HA, Briggs AH, Polsky D. Quantifying stochastic uncertainty and presenting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2001;1:25–36. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.1.1.25
Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 1990;10:212–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9001000308
Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10:779–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.635
Theodoros Deborah G, Hill Anne J, Russell Trevor G. Clinical and quality of life outcomes of speech treatment for Parkinson’s disease delivered to the home via telerehabilitation: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Am J Speech-lang Pathol 2016;25:214–32. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-15-0005
Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials 2013;14:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-15
Munro A, Bloor M. Process evaluation: the new miracle ingredient in public health research? Qual Res 2010;10:699–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110380522
Morrison DM, Hoppe MJ, Gillmore MR, Kluver C, Higa D, Wells EA. Replicating an intervention: the tension between fidelity and adaptation. AIDS Educ Prev 2009;21:128–40. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2009.21.2.128
Saiyed M, Hill AJ, Russell TG, Theodoros DG, Scuffham P. Cost analysis of home telerehabilitation for speech treatment in people with Parkinson’s disease. J Telemed Telecare 2020;28:524–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X20948302
Kinghorn P, Afentou N. Eliciting a monetary threshold for a year of sufficient capability to inform resource allocation decisions in public health and social care. Soc Sci Med 2021;279:113977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113977
McIntosh E, Gray A, Daniels J, Gill S, Ives N, Jenkinson C, et al.; PD SURG Collaborators Group. Cost–utility analysis of deep brain stimulation surgery plus best medical therapy versus best medical therapy in patients with Parkinson’s: economic evaluation alongside the PD SURG trial. Mov Disord 2016;31:1173–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26423
Wight S, Miller N. Lee Silverman Voice Treatment for people with Parkinson’s: audit of outcomes in a routine clinic. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2015;50:215–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12132
Latimer NR, Bhadhuri A, Alshreef A, Palmer R, Cross E, Dimairo M, et al. Self-managed, computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for chronic aphasia post-stroke: an economic evaluation. Clin Rehabil 2021;35:703–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215520975348
Whitehurst DGT, Latimer NR, Kagan A, Palmer R, Simmons-Mackie N, Victor JC, Hoch JS. Developing accessible, pictorial versions of health-related quality-of-life instruments suitable for economic evaluation: a report of preliminary studies conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom. PharmacoEcon Open 2018;2:225–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-018-0083-2
Whitehurst DGT, Latimer NR, Kagan A, Palmer R, Simmons-Mackie N, Hoch JS. Preference-based health-related quality of life in the context of aphasia: a research synthesis. Aphasiology 2015;29:763–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2014.985581
McCrone P, Allcock LM, Burn DJ. Predicting the cost of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2007;22:804–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21360
Weir S, Samnaliev M, Kuo TC, Tierney TS, Walleser Autiero S, Taylor RS, Schrag A. Short- and long-term cost and utilization of health care resources in Parkinson’s disease in the UK. Mov Disord 2018;33:974–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27302
Brady MC, Clark AM, Dickson S, Paton G, Barbour RS. The impact of stroke-related dysarthria on social participation and implications for rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2011;33:178–86. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.517897
Hoppitt TJ, Shah S, Bradburn P, Gill PS, Calvert MJ, Pall HS, et al. Reaching the ‘hard to reach’: strategies to recruit black and minority ethnic service users with rare long-term neurological conditions. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2012;15:485–95.
Palmer R, Dimairo M, Latimer N, Cross E, Brady M, Enderby P, et al. Computerised speech and language therapy or attention control added to usual care for people with long-term post-stroke aphasia: the Big CACTUS three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020;24:1–176. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24190
Curtis L, Burns, A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2015. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2015.
Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2014.
HMRC. Travel — mileage and fuel rates and allowances. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-travel-mileage-and-fuel-allowances/travel-mileage-and-fuel-rates-and-allowances (accessed 9 February 2022).
Regtransfers. The UK Taxi Price Index. URL: www.regtransfers.co.uk/fungames/uk-taxi-price-index (accessed 9 February 2022).
Whatprice? Train prices. URL: www.whatprice.co.uk/travel/train-prices.html (accessed 9 February 2022).