Michelle S McInerney1, Dinah S Reddihough2,3,4, Paul N Carding5, Ruth Swanton1, Chloe M Walton5, Christine Imms6. 1. School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Neurodevelopment and Disability, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Cerebral Palsy, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 6. School of Allied Health and Centre for Disability and Development Research at the Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To review the evidence for behavioural interventions to reduce drooling in children with neurodisability. METHOD: A detailed search in eight databases sought studies that: (1) included participants aged 0 to 18 years with neurodisability and drooling; (2) provided behavioural interventions targeting drooling or a drooling-related behaviour; and (3) used experimental designs. Two reviewers extracted data from full-text papers independently. Results were tabulated for comparison. The Risk of Bias assessment in N-of-1 Trials scale for single case experimental designs (SCEDs) and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were applied. RESULTS: Of an initial yield of 763, seven SCEDs and one RCT were included. Behavioural interventions included the use of reinforcement, prompting, self-management, instruction, extinction, overcorrection, and fading. Each assessed body functions or structures' outcomes (drooling frequency and severity); three included activity outcomes (mouth drying, head control, eye contact, and vocalizations) and none assessed participation or quality of life. While each study reported positive effects of intervention, risk of bias was high. INTERPRETATION: Low-level evidence suggests behavioural interventions may be useful for treatment of drooling in children with neurodisability. Well-designed intervention studies are urgently needed to determine effectiveness. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Behavioural interventions used to treat drooling included reinforcement, prompting, self-management, extinction, overcorrection, instruction, and fading. Interventions targeted body structures and function-level outcomes and activity-level outcomes. Low-level evidence supports the use of behavioural intervention to treat drooling.
AIM: To review the evidence for behavioural interventions to reduce drooling in children with neurodisability. METHOD: A detailed search in eight databases sought studies that: (1) included participants aged 0 to 18 years with neurodisability and drooling; (2) provided behavioural interventions targeting drooling or a drooling-related behaviour; and (3) used experimental designs. Two reviewers extracted data from full-text papers independently. Results were tabulated for comparison. The Risk of Bias assessment in N-of-1 Trials scale for single case experimental designs (SCEDs) and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were applied. RESULTS: Of an initial yield of 763, seven SCEDs and one RCT were included. Behavioural interventions included the use of reinforcement, prompting, self-management, instruction, extinction, overcorrection, and fading. Each assessed body functions or structures' outcomes (drooling frequency and severity); three included activity outcomes (mouth drying, head control, eye contact, and vocalizations) and none assessed participation or quality of life. While each study reported positive effects of intervention, risk of bias was high. INTERPRETATION: Low-level evidence suggests behavioural interventions may be useful for treatment of drooling in children with neurodisability. Well-designed intervention studies are urgently needed to determine effectiveness. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Behavioural interventions used to treat drooling included reinforcement, prompting, self-management, extinction, overcorrection, instruction, and fading. Interventions targeted body structures and function-level outcomes and activity-level outcomes. Low-level evidence supports the use of behavioural intervention to treat drooling.