Guest SLT blog: ‘Chatting Matters’ – Positive collaboration for communication difficulties in Dementia

Over the last few years I have been interacting more and more with speech and language therapists, working in the field of dementia, who are providing innovative services to people with dementia. Caroline and her colleagues told me all about the wonderful Chatting Matters group they set up, and I asked them to write about it for me. The following provides a really inspiring account of the work they did to set it up.

Authors: Caroline De Lamo White and Rachel McMurray are speech and language therapists in Leicester Partnerships NHS Trust, and Nicola Lawtie was the speech and language therapy lecturer at De Montfort University.


There is currently variable provision of communication intervention for people with dementia (PWD) in the UK (Volkmer et al, 2018). Many clinicians report that the greatest proportion of PWD being seen are at the later stages of the disease for assessment and management of dysphagia.  Progressive loss of language can be frustrating and traumatic for the person with dementia and affects their identity and relationships (Bryden, 2005). Communication difficulty has also been described as one of the most frequent and hardest to cope with experiences for family carers (Braun et al, 2010) and can negatively impact carers’ emotional and physical health (Gallagher-Thompson et al, 2012).

To address this area of unmet need in our service we decided to offer a community-based intervention to focus on communication breakdown in Dementia to support both the PWD and their main carer. There was a risk of being overwhelmed by a large number of referrals so we decided to undertake a small scale pilot study using the ‘plan, do, study act’ cycle advocated by the NHS Improvement (NHSI). We came up with several ideas but decided on running a communication support group for people with dementia and their carers. ‘Chatting Matters’ was born.

Aims of Chatting Matters:

  • To explore the value and scope of community-based Speech and Language Therapists (SLT) working with clients with communication difficulties secondary to dementia to inform future possible service developments for PWD.
  • To provide carers with practical strategies and tips to improve communication at home; thereby reducing carer strain and frustration.
  • To increase people with dementia’s sense of well-being and facilitate increased positive engagement in social interaction.
  • To work collaboratively with De Montfort University SLT course to develop innovative placement models to support the students learning and support the running of the groups.


We established new links with the local community mental health team who were able to provide a manageable quantity of referrals within an agreed time frame. This enabled us to undertake the study alongside existing caseloads without being overwhelmed. Referral criteria was kept fairly broad for the initial group however referrers were asked to consider couples for whom communication was a significant challenge at home, and who would be willing to attend a group.  Referrals were triaged by two qualified SLTs in the clients own home. One therapist explored the carer’s perceptions, insights and experience of their partner’s communication difficulties. The other clinician spent time informally assessing the communication abilities of the person with dementia in order to ascertain the severity and nature of their impairment.  Clients presented with a variety of conditions including early onset Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies and fronto-temporal dementia and had a varying levels of communication impairment within the mild to moderate range.




We ran a six week conversation group for the clients, alongside a support group for their carers.  There were eight participants in each group.  We worked in collaboration with undergraduate placement students from De Montfort University as a way to fully resource and support the running of the two groups. This service model would have been very difficult to run with just the SLT’s and this innovative placement opportunity provided a valuable and insightful learning experience for the students. The students were supported to run the client group and encouraged to think about a variety of multi-sensory activities which would stimulate memory, communication and promote positive person-centred interactions in order to enhance well-being. Research suggests positive changes to well-being and communication are achieved through cognitive stimulation as well as improvements in cognition therefore therapy tasks included elements of reminiscence therapy, total communication and aspects of cognitive stimulation therapy (Spector et al, 2013).

The SLT’s concurrently ran the carers group providing knowledge, strategies, advice and support around interaction and communication with PWD. There was also an opportunity for carers to share experiences together.


A variety of assessment tools were used to capture outcomes but personal narrative was found to be the most powerful and specific. Quantitative measures were found to be less sensitive to change. Carers were reluctant to “give it a number” and whilst the focus of many SLT tools is to measure language skills, for the clients the aim was to improve well-being and engagement. The comments given by clients, carers and students are captured in the table below and categorised by theme.



 Outcomes Comments
Clients with dementia Improved sense of well-being



Increased engagement in activities of daily living




Reduced sense of isolation

“Oh I have enjoyed it, yes!”

D- person with dementia


“The group lifted my spirits. I used to just watch TV and now I get dressed and go out”

I – person with dementia


“I felt abandoned after diagnosis. I don’t feel so alone. I’ve really enjoyed [the conversation group].”

V – person with dementia




Carers Increased level of insight into the importance of well-being in self and others.



Observing a tangible increase in levels of engagement in a supportive environment.





Increased carer resilience



Improved knowledge, understanding and acceptance of the condition and its affects.






Change of approach and increased insight into the applicability of communication strategies.


“[The group] made me realise that well-being applies to us all. It made me think about how to

bring the best out in K ”


“S looked forward to the group each week and I found that when he was in the session he really came ‘out of his shell’; initiating conversation with others and making jokes.”


“I’m coping much better than I did [before the group]”


“[The group] has helped me accept [my husband’s diagnosis of dementia]. I was feeling very anxious at times before the group. This has reduced.”




“ I have learnt the importance of patience with communication”


“Not everything has been relevant to my specific circumstances but there are bits to take away.”

Placement Students Developing a therapeutic relationship


Continuity of care


Witnessing positive change within a short time frame


Experience of intervention planning for people with dementia


Running a group


Working independently


Developing workforce

“For much of the rest of my adult placement I was doing assessments/reviews, it was really good to see clients over 6 weeks, build relationships and see that the clients were both benefitting and enjoying it”


“I learned about Dementia and its impact and could see that the couples really needed this”


“I knew that it would not have been possible to resource this group without students which made us feel we were really making a difference”


“I enjoyed the independence of planning and running the groups with my peers but with support. It gave me confidence and helped me really develop my skills”


Reflections and Outcomes on Speech and Language Therapy Provision:

We were able to offer earlier intervention to PWD and address a currently under-resourced area of need, which may prevent crisis further down the line. We were able to work with conversation partners / carers to develop strategies to support interaction, as recommended by NICE, 2018. We were able to establish a model for future service provision with potential for replication around the country. Collaboration with De Montfort University and use of undergraduate students enabled us to run groups without engaging additional staff from the department. We were able to use students as part of the workforce and provide them with an innovative placement where they were able to facilitate real positive change over a short space of time and develop important SLT knowledge and skills for their future careers.


The plan is to re-run the groups with implemented changes based on reflections from the pilot. We hope to use a wider variety of outcome measures to capture and evidence the positive changes that participants reported. The benefits of collaboration with DMU have been key to the success of running the pilot which is paramount in a climate of reducing resources.


Braun M, et al (2010) Toward a Better Understanding of Psychological Well‐Being in Dementia Caregivers: The Link Between Marital Communication and Depression. Family Process. 49 (2) 185-203

Brydan, C. (2005) Dancing with Dementia. London. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Gallagher-Thompson D et al. (2012) International Perspectives on Nonpharmacological Best Practices for Dementia Family Caregivers: A Review. Clinical Gerontologist, 35. pp 316-355.

Spector A, et al (2003) Efficacy for an Evidenced Based Cognitive Stimulation Programme for People With Dementia: Randomised Control Trial. British Journal of Psychiatry. 183 pp.248-254

Volkmer, A., Spector, A., Warren, J. D., & Beeke, S. (2018). Speech and language therapy for primary progressive aphasia: referral patterns and barriers to service provision across the UK. Dementia, 1471301218797240.


All practicable steps: The forthcoming Mental Capacity CEN for SLTs

Many moons ago (five years to be more precise) I attended a study day for a group of speech and language therapists with a special interest in acquired neurological conditions. The theme of the day was the Mental Capacity Act and its relevance to the profession. It was such an interesting day, and I made connections with people with similar interest in this fascinating and important area and with whom I have maintained contact with ever since. Yet the discussions on this day were rather split. Many therapists at the event took the view that SLTs should not be advertising themselves as willing to assess people’s decision making capacity for fear of being flooded with an overwhelming number of referrals that we wouldn’t know how to cope with. Others felt quite the opposite, suggesting that supporting decision making and issues related to this should be part of our core business.

Since then, work around the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act in health and social care settings, the NICE guidelines and RCSLT guidance for example, has made it clear that all professionals need to understand the basic principles of the Mental Capacity Act. All professionals need to be aware that a person with an impairment of mind or brain may have difficulties in decision making and that should there be any evidence of this then an assessment of decision-making capacity may need to be undertaken. This assessment should only be undertaken if all reasonable steps to support decision making have been taken. And if they have been shown to lack capacity then a decision may be made in their best interests, depending on the decision at hand.

So what are speech and language therapists doing in clinical practice? There has been some data collected on the practices – a survey of SLTs across the UK was published last year (McCormick, Bose & Marinis, 2017, Aphasiology, 31(11), 1344-1358). This has collated some information on the roles that SLTs are taking (sometimes being assessor and decision-maker but often not being utilised perhaps because others don’t know about the breadth of our role) and the training that they are delivering to other professionals (mostly to allied health). That said there has been lots of innovative work done, and lots of work that needs to be done to develop practice further. Some SLTs are even specialising in Mental Capacity work both within and outside the NHS.

But a number of SLTs felt they needed a bit more support- from within the profession. A tweet set out by @jothespeechie illustrated that there was a lot of interest in such a group (over 100 people responded to this tweet). Amongst other things responses highlighted that SLTs would like:

  • To share practice from across the discipline
  • To share resources within the discipline and beyond
  • To spread the word about our role to other disciplines
  • To develop assessment practices and processes
  • To refine and define the role of the SLT in relation to mental capacity
  • To consider training- of new graduates and undergraduates in this area
  • To get regular updates on legislation and policy development
  • To influence research priorities in this area

And yesterday a group of SLTs gathered at UCL to put their minds together to get something off the ground. The team put together an application for RCSLT for the aptly named Mental Capacity CEN. We assigned a Chair (our fearless leader @jothespeechie), treasurer, secretary, membership secretary, social media secretary and study day organisers. We planned methods of disseminating information- look out for our forthcoming twitter handler, WordPress site, Instagram and Facebook pages. We have even started thinking about our forthcoming study days and have a list of ideas for potential presentations from existing committee members as well as individuals external to the group. We would like to host workshops and discussions. We are even planning to put together some work that might be published in the Bulletin magazine to disseminate anything we develop such as competencies or resources.

On a personal note I feel that the energy in the meeting was super exciting. It is important for us to have a voice in issues related to decision making and mental capacity. The legislation describes the functional test of decision making in relation to four domains- understanding, expression, retention and weighing up a decision. As a profession we have been studying at least 50% (more in many ways) for many many decades. We understand the subtleties of language and communication (even with individuals without communication difficulties) better than many. We are able to modify language to plan, accessible and inclusive communication. We can detect bias and inference. I feel that this is just the beginning of what we might be able to do for the people we serve (our patients) as well as for our colleagues!

So keep watch – we will be advertising our study days soon!

The NHS: Where are all the research participants?

At the beginning of this journey, before I had even started my PhD, when I was only just putting together the potential funding application for my NIHR fellowship, I was asked to estimate how many participants I might be able to recruit to my randomised controlled pilot study. At this point I hadn’t actually finalised the funding application (nowhere near), nor had I got a PhD place, let alone designed the intervention I was planning to trial. All I had to base my numbers on was a pragmatic guess, based on a service I had worked in (in a national central London NHS centre) for all of one year. I was the first SLT to have worked in this memory disorders service, and there seemed to be a fair number of people with PPA being referred. Having checked these numbers with the two other SLT services who had in principle agreed to participate in this theoretical trial, this was then multiplied by three. The two other SLTs also worked in large regional centres. And just to add, I would describe us all as optimistic people.

Once calculated, these recruitment numbers were used in my funding application, which I was awarded (yay), and thus approximately 9 months after making this calculation I started my PhD. In the first year of my PhD I did some other PhD-y work (a survey, a literature review) and I started my application for ethical approval to conduct the research within the NHS trusts who had, in principle agreed to host the pilot. I used the same numbers I had optimistically calculated a couple of years prior. Then toward the end of year two of my PhD, I received ethical approval (while simultaneously finalising the design of the intervention and doing some ironing out and road testing) and commenced R&D approval within each organisation. At the start of my third year I trained the three NHS sites. Or I tried to. In that time the service I had previously worked for no longer existed in the same form, so no PPA referrals. By this time the SLT at the second NHS trust was about to retire. And the SLT at the third NHS trust was under a lot of pressure, her department having undergone a re-structure. Initially, we only recruited a couple of participants.

So, I embarked on a mission to get more SLTs in new NHS sites on board. I emailed around to a number of SLTs working in dementia and identified three new sites- one as a participant identification centre (PIC) for the first site, the other two as stand-alone sites. Once an ethics amendment and local R&D had been sorted out, as well as training completed, it was nearing the middle of the third year of my PhD. One site was prolific- and recruited a number of participants to the study. The PIC site took longer to set up, lots of creases to iron out. And at the third site, the new neurologist started referring significantly fewer people with PPA. Then one of the SLTs became pregnant and another SLT’s short term contract came to an end and the department struggled to replace her.

So, toward the end of my third year, I added a few more (local London based) sites. This time I contacted local SLTs, anyone who worked with adults, who reported seeing the odd person with PPA. This represents most adult SLT services. I also found that as I disseminated work on my PhD project, a couple of services approached me offering to be added as research sites. Another round of ethics amendments, local R&D applications and training has dominated the first half of the fourth year of my PhD. The momentum is increasing and more people with PPA have been recruited to the study.

Of course not every client would like to participate in a research study, for various reasons. Yet there have been many participants, who have been incredibly generous and interested and excited by the study.

Despite it seeming rather strange to estimate how many participants I might recruit to a study in 3 or 4 years’ time, how else can we plan a study? Thus here are some tips to recruitment of participants in an NHS setting:

  • Recruit more professionals at more NHS sites than you think you will need – things change, people change jobs and you may find the sites are unable to participate at some point.


  • Monitor your recruitment closely and add more sites when you have a tiny flutter of an idea that you may need more – the paperwork takes so long you may as well get on with it.


  • Give the professionals you are working with a thorough training session, and all the materials they need, try to make it as easy as possible to participate in the study.


  • Encourage the professionals to think of the study as routine- if one had a cancer diagnosis one wouldn’t be surprised to be offered to participate in a research study, so why not offer a speech and language therapy research study.


  • Encourage the professionals you are working with, send them emails updating them on the project, thank them for their help, emphasise that they are an incredibly valuable part of the team.


  • Keep in regular touch with the professionals you are working with so they don’t forget about the study. Send Christmas and Easter and summer holiday emails. Try and email every two months or so at least.


  • Be available, send them your phone number, so they can call or text or email. Whatever they choose.


  • Most importantly. Persevere. Keep going. This is the real NHS and it is worth it.

The Thesis: Sitting on the edge looking into the abyss. Some tips and hints I am trying to live by.

I recently wrote this blog recently for and was really glad that people read it and found it useful and interesting. There seemed to be a fair amount of tweeting around it and this I wondered if it might be useful to re-share on my own blog. You can check out the version here:

I have currently got around seven months until the end of my PhD – until my funding runs out and I officially enter a period of CRS (Continued Research Status). Prior to applying for my PhD I did not know that this extra period of unpaid limbo time existed. I, like many people I now speak to, thought that the period of the PhD was literally the period of the PhD. That I would do my research, write my thesis and submit it as well as compete my viva within this period. Interestingly I have realised that this is not necessarily how it works. The CRS period is a useful safety net. It gives me the time to finish my thesis, to finish my work, properly. That said I do need to write most of my thesis before then.

Thinking about my thesis I have noticed a strange physical sensation. It is not dissimilar to standing on the top diving board deciding when to jump, or at the start of a marathon race waiting to get doing. I suspect this feeling is probably useful. This same feeling (a bit like nausea) has helped me run a couple of marathons, write a couple of books and write and submit my NIHR fellowship application. Without this feeling, I may lose track and get distracted. Yet I also risk letting it dominate and entering a phase of stress and anxiety. This would not be so helpful.


So. How can I maintain an equilibrium. I have managed to ride the PhD wave relatively emotionally unscathed. Much of this is due to the epic supervision I have and doing a lot of exercise (most days- it really helps me excise my demons).


But I just wanted to share a few tips and hints that seemed small but have really helped on route:


  • Write a Gantt chart at the start of your studies – identify all the tasks and milestones you anticipate and outline when you will work on these.


  • Revisit the Gantt chart regularly with your supervisors and remind yourself of your schedule, this is your to-do list and should be updated with everything you have done and will do. Refine and adjust accordingly.


  • Include writing time on the Gantt chart. Writing time for articles and thesis chapters. You may even wish to write a new or extra Gantt chart specifically for the thesis chapters, including timelines for initial versions and first, second, third and fourth edits.


  • Plan your thesis chapters early-ish. Write up a potential list of contents as soon as you can. It may seem ridiculous but you can always revise them. At least you’ll have something to visualise. This will form your thesis plan.


  • Some universities accept a thesis by publication i.e. your thesis chapters may comprise articles you have already written and published. Many universities do not allow this, but writing an article can be extremely useful and time efficient when it comes to turning it into a thesis chapter. You basically need to re-visit and rewrite the article to sit within the entire thesis story- explain how it fits into the thesis puzzle. After all your thesis is basically a story or an account of what you have done over the last 3-5 years that comprises the PhD – this is your exam paper.


  • You may write your thesis the other way round, and that is also good. In fact, by writing the thesis chapter you may later have the materials to edit down to an article.


  • Don’t feel intimidated- this thesis is achievable. Demonstrate this to yourself by breaking down the thesis into its component parts- how many words will it be, how many words approximately per chapter, how many sub sections in each chapter. Do you already have those chapter headings and sub sections? As you work through each stage of your research – planning projects and experiments it is likely that you will have created plans and protocols and stages that you can apply here within the subsections.


  • A good way of doing this is to have a look at other thesis in your department, together with the thesis guidelines for your university. Just as you would look at a journal to see if they publish similar articles to yours and analyse the style of both the article and that outlined in the style guide. Identify word counts, guidance on titles, formatting, pages, referencing – it’s all useful stuff.


  • Set yourself small goals each week. Perhaps to spend x amount of time on y. To tackle x section. To write x no. of words. Whatever works for you. Block out sections of your diary, protect them from other tasks so you can write your thesis. Writing is just as important as other PhD tasks. And getting some words under your belt will help you feel a lot better, there will be evidence you are getting there. Tick off your small goals and reward yourself.


  • Tell your supervisor how you feel. Or perhaps your friends and colleagues. Doing a PhD is stressful sometimes, but so is working in general, so is having kids, so is paying the rent or the mortgage, so is being a grown up. You are not on your own in feeling a bit stressed out by life.


  • And no-one explicitly tells you the rules for doing a PhD before you start. That is kind of what your supervisor is there for. Just as your manager or supervisor at work would be. To show you the ropes.


  • Your supervisors are there for you. They want you to succeed. If you don’t succeed that reflects on them, so if they suggest changes or give feedback you feel cross about, it’s fine to be cross for a minute and then think about it a bit more. Try it out. Talk about it. They have a lot more experience in this field than you do.


This is your PhD (no-one else’s) and you are a grown up. Own it.  Once you have it, no-one can take it away. So take it by the horns. Get it done. Put it on your CV and wear it with pride. It is pretty darn impressive! Keep your head down, write and you will be rewarded (with champagne hopefully!).


I suspect you know all this- I kind of do. I just need to get on with it. Eeek.



Make Better Conversations work for your clients (and win a £30 Amazon voucher)

Working as an SLT in clinical practice is hectic. Our caseloads and waiting lists are often hefty and weigh on our minds from the moment we start off from home to get to work to the moment we get home from work (and often haunt us in the middle of the night when we suddenly think about poor Mr Smith who really needs a review). We want resources that are quick and accessible, and yet evidence based and effective. Then along comes a resource like Better Conversations. “What a relief it’s free AND evidence based!” we shriek. But is it really that helpful? What bits of it do we actually use? What bits of it are actually the most helpful?


We want to evaluate the impact of Better Conversations with Aphasia (BCA) on the clinical practice of SLTs. BCA currently has 6300+ registered users, worldwide. We are starting with SLT users who are practising in the UK and Republic of Ireland. We want to know how you are using the resource, and its impact on you and the services you provide. It is really important for researchers to know the impact their resources have on SLTs’ everyday practice. If we know what works we can make more of it, and if we know what needs changing we can make sure we do that.


To this end we are disseminating a survey for SLTs to complete:


The results of this survey will be presented and published and will help us with future research to directly address the practice-evidence gap by exploring the barriers and supports to implementing BCA in daily clinical practice. We want to build a community of practice – a clinical academic alliance to develop an intervention that is usable and useful. We need your help!

The survey only takes about 15 minutes to complete AND you can choose to go into a prize draw for a £30 Amazon gift voucher!


If you need any more convincing I thought I would borrow 7 reasons for doing the BCA survey from a recent blog I read by Madeline Cruice . This blog discusses the 7 reasons why we should do surveys based on a recent article by Boaz et al


So here are the 7 reasons for doing the BCA survey (borrowed both in content and sometimes wording from Madeline’s blog):


1. Just being involved in the processes of the research can improve performance, by going online, reading the survey questions, considering the relevance to you and your practice, and how important it is to your clients.


2. Engaging in the survey might change your attitudes or behaviours around communication partner training and using Better Conversations. Doing the survey might prompt a conversation with colleagues about Better Conversations and treatment with clients with aphasia, and you might even decide to follow this up in a future journal club.


3. Completing the survey might help you be more aware and give you more understanding of the specific research findings, when we do start discussing and disseminating these later this year.


4. Completing the survey might make you interested in finding out more about the project, might encourage you to read one of the papers flagged online on our website or ask a question directly to our team:


5. Being involved might help you apply the findings of the research more (once they’re out) in your local setting with colleagues and in-service presentations.


6. Being involved is one relatively easy way of keeping up to date with an important and emerging area of rehabilitation research – complete the survey, and then go to our website and subscribe by email for automatic blog postings delivering project updates and relevant information to your preferred inbox.


You can also enter it into your Continuing Professional Development log (win, win!).


7. Finally, the obvious one is that being involved makes the research more relevant for practicing speech and language therapists and for services, which is what we here in the Better Conversations team are all about.

Convinced? So what are you waiting for! Join our BCA community of practice by completing the survey here:


This seems like the perfect moment to remind you all about our first ever Better Conversations conference, later this year (November 6/7th) here at UCL, focused on a range of adult work. Look out for the information- or email us and we can send it directly! or


Can we reduce the stigma around dementia: Ideas please.


The stigma around dementia remains massive. Dementia is one of the most feared condition by those in their 50s and 60s, perhaps partly because of what people associate with dementia. People assume that dementia results in a total loss of all cognitive capacity- it is not uncommon to hear a daughter, son or partner of a person who has just been diagnosed with dementia stating that the person will now no longer be able to manage any finances, shopping, household chores. They will not be able to have any responsibilities or make any further decisions about anything again. Occasionally I have also met people who have been excluded from their families and communities because of their diagnosis. Who have lost business’, their homes, their identity and the people they love. Generally, because the dementia has mistaken for something else. Just once I met someone who had been told she had been inhabited by “bad spirits” : the dementia.


I have recently had a number of conversations around the stigma associated with a dementia diagnosis. The difference is this time that I was talking about what we as health professionals could do to reduce this stigma.


One way of doing this is to co-produce work with people with dementia. To work together as a team. The steering group on my research project has been working with me throughout my project (3 and a half years nearly- to date). This steering group is made up of three couples- where one person has language led dementia (primary progressive aphasia- PPA), and their partners. The group provide advice and guidance on the development of my work. One aspect of this has included developing information (modules) that will alongside the intervention we are currently trialing. The group felt that we couldn’t put the intervention out, freely available, on the internet without providing some basic information on what PPA is, what conversation training is and what other resources and information there is on PPA.


We have most recently been working on the resources module. Included in this was going to be a list of communication tips and hints. Yet on discussion the group felt these tips were too narrow, too specific. They wanted to create a set of tips and hints to help people live well. To dispel some of the myth around what life is like following a diagnosis of PPA. We wrote a list of activities, and ideas on things to do (together) that are not dependent on language. Things that people in the group, their friends and family like to do. The list is long- from crafting to walking to attending concerts. And it is exciting. After we wrote the list (it took some time) the group felt electric. Everybody was excited by the list. We all felt that it was an incredibly positive thing to do. That we had created a really useful resource that will remind people of everything they CAN do.


I am now working with a colleague to create another small idea to reduce the stigma around dementia. We would like to create a video recording of an education session. The aim is to:

  • Help people understand why dementia affects language and communication
  • Show how people can have better conversations with people with dementia by using some simple communication strategies
  • Reduce the stigma around dementia by highlighting that people with dementia lead rich and fulfilling lives, can make their own decisions and lead a good life.


We want to record it so that we can share it for free via any possible medium- the internet, word of mouth and so forth.


But what we would really like to know is would people be interested in this and what would they like us to do in such an event?


Do share your ideas and comments! They are always useful.





Old and young: overlaps between developmental language and acquired language disorders


Despite being an adult SLT (ever since graduating) I recently went to a series of really interesting presentations on developmental language. This is not that unusual, I often listen to colleagues speaking about their work in this area. And being a PhD student is a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of the incredibly rich environment in which I am working. Even in the 4th year of my PhD I am attending these talks. Being a PhD student is an incredibly valuable experience, and writing up my thesis is not necessarily the most important part of it. Here are some interesting pearls from this recent series:


There are many links and parallels between language development in children and loss of language in adult acquired neurological conditions. One talk I attended focused on the importance of stress, tone and emphasis in infant directed speech. Over-emphasising on syllables and words can enable infants to start parsing and following sounds, words and turns. Using strategies such as eye contact, and the name of the child can act as signals to gain and maintain attention. It is not so different in dementia- using a persons name and making eye contact are incredibly useful for gaining their attention, and for many who have less cognitive resources and reduced auditory processing there is now evidence indicating they may benefit from that type of over-emphatic speech. Despite it being previously considered fairly patronising it may be an important strategy to aid comprehension for some individuals with dementia.


Learning conversational turn taking from parents or communication partners is another area that is thought to contribute to language development. Both in the act of, and content of turns, breakdowns and repairs in conversation. The communication partner plays an important and valuable role in conversation and turn taking. Similarly the skills of the communication partners are often vital for adults with aphasia and dementia. People with aphasia and dementia are often able to continue participating in many aspects of conversational undertaking, and a skilled communication partner can enable them to continue doing so. A skilled communication partner can modify their turns to scaffold the conversation for the person with aphasia or dementia.


I have always found how children learn to read a fascinating process. And the research indicates that learning to read by sounding out- so through the phonics system, is equally effective as learning to read by learning the orthographic word forms. On imaging however it appears that the phonics route is significantly less cognitively effortful. And given that a shocking number of the adult population are not able to read (around 15% apparently) this may be useful for teaching adults. Adult literacy is extremely difficult to untangle. It may often be complicated by dyslexia, social communication difficulties and socio-economic status. But we also know that adults with developmental dyslexia may be more at risk of dementia than their peers. Perhaps this type of work could join some of these dots and provide some suggestion as to why this might be the case.


As a bilingual person, bilingualism fascinates me. There is some suggestion that children spread their vocabulary acquisition across two languages, but eventually catch up. That reading and writing suffer as a consequence, and it could be difficult to translate skills from one language to another. But the idea that bilingualism can protect against the onset of dementia is wonderful. Yet Asia is experiencing significant increases in the number of people living with dementia and here bilingualism is far more complex- people switch through 2-3-4 languages within a conversation, perhaps based on ease of word retrieval or contextual cues. How does this factor in?


There is so much exciting research in my department, and listening to fields outside my own can be inspiring. We can draw links, think creatively and explore alternative theories. There is so much more work to be done! I feel so privileged to be exposed to this environment, to be working in such a fascinating field. I can’t wait to do more than my PhD- to continue in this clinical-academic field. I have so many ideas!