Ensaio clínico de tratamento – em três modalidades – para crianças com distúrbios da fluência e gagueira
Treatment clinical trial – three types – for children with fluency disorders and stuttering
Nathalia dos Santos Fernandes de Ávila; Fabiola Juste; Julia Biancalana Costa; Claudia Regina Furquim de Andrade
Resumo
Objetivo: Delinear um ensaio clínico de tratamento – em três modalidades – que verificasse se os tramentos testados para a gagueira crônica do desenvolvimento (GCD) apresentam indicadores que permitam reunir informações para a continuidade da sua aplicação, estabelecendo uma relação benefício-risco eficaz e segura. Método: Para a realização do estudo foram analisadas 252 crianças, com idades entre 2 e 12 anos, que realizaram avaliação e tratamento para a GCD. Dentre as crianças atendidas, 93 cumpriram todos os critérios de elegibilidade. Após a obtenção dos escores de risco para GCD (Protocolo de Risco para a Gagueira do Desenvolvimento) todas as crianças foram avaliadas segundo seu perfil da fluência e grau de gravidade da gagueira. Foram aplicados os tratamentos para GCD: Programa Verde; Programa Amarelo e Programa Vermelho. A determinação do tratamento mais indicado para cada criança foi baseada na análise do grau de risco para a GCD. Resultados: Todos os programas terapeuticos apresentaram resultados de melhora pós-tratamento consistentes nos segmentos analisados com exceção de: repetição de palavras; prolongamentos no final das palavras e intrusão de sons/ segmentos. Conclusão: Os programas terapêuticos testados – verde, amarelo e vermelho – foram eficientes para a ampla maioria dos participantes. A intervenção direta, aplicada no Programa Vermelho, foi altamente eficiente para a promoção da fala fluente, indicando que para os casos com maior índice de cronicidade a aplicação de técnicas específicas é indicada.
Palavras-chave
Abstract
Purpose: To present a treatment clinical trial, involving three types of treatment for chronic developmental stuttering (CDS), to verify whether they present indicators and sufficient information to establish an effective and safe benefit-risk relationship. Methods: The study included 252 children between 2 and 12 years old, who underwent assessment and treatment for CDS. Among the selected children, 93 met the established inclusion criteria. After obtaining the scores for the risk of CDS (Protocol for the Risk of Developmental Stuttering), all children were assessed according to their fluency profile and the severity level of stuttering. The children underwent treatment for CDS Green, Yellow and Red Programs. The treatment chosen for each child was based on the analysis of the risk for CDS. Results: All therapeutic programs presented positive results in the post-treatment assessment considering the analyzed parameters, with the exception of word repetition, sound prolongation at the end of words, and intrusion of sounds/word segments. Conclusion: The tested therapeutic programs – green, yellow, and red – were efficient for most of the participants. The direct intervention used in the Red Program was highly efficient in promoting fluent speech. This result suggests that for most of the patients with a higher risk of developing the chronic form of stuttering, the use of specific fluency promotion techniques is indicated.
Keywords
References
1) ASHA: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Evidence-based practice in communication disorders [Internet]. Rockville: ASHA; 2005 [citado em 2020 Ago 21]. Disponível em: www.asha.org/policy
2) APA: American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder, fifth edition (DSM-V). Arlington: APA; 2013.
3) Garnett EO, Chow HM, Nieto-Castañon A, Tourville JA, Guenther FH, Chang SE. Anomalous morphology in left hemisphere motor and premotor cortex of children who stutter. Brain. 2018;141(9):2670-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awy199 PMid:30084910.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awy199
4) Andrade CRF. Abordagem neurolinguística e motora da gagueira. In: Fernandes FDM, Mendes BCA, Navas ALPG, editores. Tratado de Fonoaudiologia. 2. ed. São Paulo: Roca; 2010.
5) Costa JB, Ritto AP, Juste FS, Andrade CRF. Comparação da performance de fala em indivíduos gagos e fluentes. CoDAS. 2017;29(2):e20160136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20172016136 PMid:28327784.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20172016136
6) Chang SE, Angstadt M, Chow HM, Etchell AC, Garnett EO, Choo AL, et al. Anomalous network architecture of the resting brain in children who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2018;55:46-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.01.002 PMid:28214015.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.01.002
7) Chang SE, Zhu DC. Neural network connectivity differences in children who stutter. Brain. 2013;136(Pt 12):3709-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt275 PMid:24131593.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt275
8) Chang SE, Zhu DC, Choo AL, Angstadt M. White matter neuroanatomical diferrences in young children who stutter. Brain. 2015;138(Pt 3):694-711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu400 PMid:25619509.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu400
9) Neumann K, Euler HÁ, Kob M, Wolff von Gudenberg A, Giraud AL, Weissgerber T, et al. Assisted and unassisted recession of functional anomalies associated with dysprosody in adults who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2018;55:120-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.09.003 PMid:28958627.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.09.003
10) Ingham RJ, Ingham JC, Euler HA, Neumann K. Stuttering treatment and brain research in adults: a still unfolding relationship. J Fluency Disord. 2018;55:106-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.02.003 PMid:28413060.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.02.003
11) Bloodstein O, Ratner BN. A handbook on stuttering. 6th ed. Clifton Park: Delmar Learning; 2007.
12) Yairi E, Ambrose N. Epimediology of stuttering: 21st century advances. J Fluency Disord. 2013;38(2):66-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.11.002 PMid:23773662.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.11.002
13) Onslow M, O’Brian S. Management of childhood stuttering. J Paediatr Child Health. 2013;49(2):E112-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpc.12034 PMid:23252938.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpc.12034
14) Guitar B. Stuttering: an integrated approach to its nature and treatment. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
15) Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):e1-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004 PMid:20346624.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004
16) Mohiuddin MM, Mizubuti G, Haroutounian S, Smith S, Campbell F, Park R, et al. Adherence to Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Guidelines for reporting safety outcomes in trials of cannabinoids for chronic pain: protocol for a systematic review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2019;8(1):e11637. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/11637 PMid:30688655.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/11637
17) Andrade CRF, Juste F. Proposta de análise de performance e de evolução em crianças com gagueira desenvolvimental. Rev CEFAC. 2005;7(2):158-70.
18) Andrade CRF. Provas de avaliação da eficácia do tratamento. In: Andrade CRF, editor. Gagueira infantil: risco, diagnóstico e programas terapêuticos. Barueri: Pró-Fono; 2006. p.87-92.
19) Andrade CRF. Protocolos. In: Andrade CRF, editor. Gagueira infantil: risco, diagnóstico e programas terapêuticos. Barueri: Pró-Fono; 2006. p. 133-40.
20) Andrade CRF. Fluência (Parte C). In: Andrade CRF, Befi-Lopes DM, Fernandes FDM, Wertznez HF, editores. ABFW – teste de linguagem infantil nas áreas de fonologia, vocabulário, fluência e pragmática. Barueri: Pró-Fono; 2004. p. 51-81.
21) Riley G. The Stuttering Severity Instrument for adults and children (SSI-3). 3rd ed. Austin: PRO-ED; 1994.
22) Andrade CRF. Gagueira infantil: risco, diagnóstico e programas terapêuticos. Barueri: Pro Fono; 2006. p. 53-86.
23) Yairi E, Ambrose NG. Early childhood stuttering I: persistency and recovery rates. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999;42(5):1097-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4205.1097 PMid:10515508.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4205.1097
24) Yairi E, Ambrose NG, Paden EP, Throneburg RN. Predictive factors of persistence and recovery: pathways of childhood stuttering. J Commun Disord. 1996;29(1):51-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(95)00051-8 PMid:8722529.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(95)00051-8
25) Nippold M. Stuttering in preschool children: direct versus indirect treatment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2018;49(1):4-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0066 PMid:29322186.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0066
26) Ratner NB. EBP and PCC in treating a preschooler who stutters. Lang Speech Hear Ser. 2018;49:13-22.
27) Berquez A, Kelman E. Methods for desensitizing parents of CWS. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(3S):1124-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-ODC11-17-0183
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-ODC11-17-0183
Submitted date:
08/21/2020
Accepted date:
03/20/2021
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email