ArticleHealth policy OPEN2024
Aligned or misaligned: Are public funding models for speech-language pathology reflecting recommended evidence? An exploratory survey of Australian speech-language pathologists.
Article in Health policy OPEN, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genres and typologies of standard paediatric service public funding model provisions for speech-language pathology management: A scoping review.Health policy OPEN · 2026Article
- Translating Technology Into Speech-Language Pathology Practice: Qualitative Interviews Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as a Case Study.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Government subsidised funding arrangements serve as an essential medium for families to access private speech-language pathology (SLP) services in Australia. This study aimed to investigate whether, from a provider perspective, contemporary public funding models (PFMs) align with best-available scientific evidence for management of children and young persons with swallowing and communication disorders within Australian private-practice settings. This exploratory study was distributed to paediatric speech-language pathologists throughout Australia via an online survey. A total of 121 valid surveys were completed by Australian speech-language pathologists with divergent career experiences. In comparing three familiar PFMs using mixed effects logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios, results indicated that perceived congruence with recommended scientific evidence for SLP management varied across PFMs: the odds of failing to align with scientific evidence was 4.92 times higher for Medicare's Chronic Disease Management Plan (MBS_CDMP) than for the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and 7.40 times higher in comparison to Medicare's Helping Children with Autism initiative. This study is the first to report on (in)congruence between PFMs that provide access to independent Australian SLP services for children and young persons and best available scientific evidence to inform clinical practice. Participants identified that: (a) four out of seven contemporary PFMs were unfamiliar to speech-language pathologists; and (b) MBS_CDMP initiative failed to align with the evidence-base for best scientific SLP management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.