Introduction/rationale
Standardised clinical assessments and intervention protocols form a strong foundation of evidence-based practice. We argue that the client’s voice is not necessarily heard in this process. Participatory Action Research (PAR) is an approach that privileges community voices. In this presentation, we aim to combine this qualitative approach with a quantitative Single Case Experimental Design (SCED) approach that can highlight individual change over time. We will showcase how complementary these two methods can be.
Evidence, implementation, and evaluation
Part 1 provides an overview of the two different methods. A SCED approach can capture individual patterns using multiple measures across multiple time points, which will be demonstrated with real world examples. The PAR approach can highlight non-dominant perspectives using a look-think-act-reflect iterative cycle in its change process. However, both approaches have the individual in its focus. Part 2 includes a critical analysis of our own paediatric SCED study and how PAR could inform future directions.
Main outcomes
We reflect on how PAR principles could have been implemented from the start and whether we could have attended more to inter-individual differences across participants. We make suggestions about how to integrate community perspectives, with key recommendations on how to apply this new mixed-methods approach in clinical practice.
Conclusion
SCEDs are important to consider for evidence-based practice. PAR has potential to complement and enrich these contributions. PAR opens doors for incorporating strategies to keep disseminating research findings to all clients in ways that are meaningful to them, and importantly, maintaining their involvement in co-presenting at conferences, and co-authoring on publications.
Key words
Participatory action research, single case experimental design, developmental language disorder

Submission statement: Clinical researchers reflected on methodological approaches to clinical outcome testing and acknowledge these approaches often do not capture the non-dominant voices of clients and community. We respond by exploring the potential of using PAR as a complementary approach which respects the perspectives of our key stakeholders to make the change process of research and practice meaningful.

• Background and context
In co-design (including experience-based co-design), stakeholders are engaged as equal partners in quality improvement and research activities. The shared decision making and power sharing processes in co-design methods, encourage interaction between stakeholders to ensure the most effective outcomes for service users are established (designing with and not for clients or patients). Co-design can be used to shape models of care, resources and services.

• Learning outcomes
1) Attendees will understand the principles of co-design and how they can be used to support speech pathology research and enhance patient experiences.
2) Attendees will have knowledge of the key components required for successful engagement with co-design methods with a variety of stakeholders.
3) Through worked examples, attendees will gain practical understanding of co-design methods, practices and resources for clinical and research contexts.

• Assumed knowledge or experience
Nil prior knowledge required.

• Outline of activities
This 2-hour workshop will introduce a variety of co-design methods and resources to clinicians who are new to co-design methodologies or would like to enhance their current understanding. This will include: 1) understanding the underlying principles of co-design methods, 2) outlining key considerations and strategies used in best practice co-design to support successful engagement with stakeholders, and 3) Worked examples of co-design activities.

• Implications for practice
Speech pathology services may benefit from the inclusion of co-design methods to enhance the quality of services provided. This workshop will support participants to utilise co-design methods in driving clinical quality improvement initiatives, or to embed patient experience in new research.

Submission Statement:
This workshop will support participants to respect the expertise of stakeholders in speech pathology services through an understanding of co-design processes. Participants will reflect on how to employ best practice when using co-design methods, gaining skills and practical knowledge that can be implemented in research and quality improvement processes.

Aim: This workshop is on how to conduct a Delphi study in Speech Pathology Practice.

Background and Context : Delphi studies have been successful in establishing a consensus among speech pathology participants (Krikheli et al., 2018 & 2021), and in establishing competencies for occupational therapy practice (Marshall et al., 2021). Delphi studies have also been used to investigate health service models and migrants (Wong et al., 2014).

According to Nasa, Jain and Juneja (2021) there are no standard quality parameters to evaluate Delphi methods in health care research. However, the aforementioned authors purpose key elements of a Delphi methodology including; anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback and statistical stability of consensus.

Learning outcomes:
This workshop will support learners to understand the Delphi methodology and conduct a Delphi study including:

• Participant recommendation from an expert panel making sure to maintain anonymity.
• How to set rounds and seek consensus. When results are collated and consensus sought, the Delphi method ensures that there is controlled feedback.
• How to conduct elementary statistical analysis to determine outcomes.

To participate in this workshop there is no assumed research knowledge or experience, it is proposed to demystify the research process for clinicians seeking to achieve consensus regarding complex issues.

Participants will be encouraged to come to the workshop with a question/problem that they would like to research and as each step of the Delphi process is defined they will be supported to scope that problem into the research process.

Workshop attendees having completed this workshop will achieve the ability to scope a clinical problem into a research question and put both into a research study appropriate for publication

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is the active partnership between researchers, patients, and laypeople in the process of creating research. PPI in stroke aphasia research aims to ensure equal opportunities for informed decision-making and guarantee democratic representation of patient partners within the research team. Yet, little is known about the factors that hinder and/or promote the autonomous involvement of people with aphasia in stroke and aphasia PPI projects. This study aimed to explore the views and perspectives of people who live with chronic stroke, with and without aphasia, with experience in research prior to stroke, on their potential involvement as research partners.
Methods: The research team included a PPI partner with chronic stroke-induced aphasia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted online with people with chronic stroke (n = 8), four with aphasia and four without. Interviews were subject to thematic analysis.
Results: Inductive thematic analysis generated four themes: (1) the kinds of Restrictions that make involvement in research difficult, (2) the preferred levels and ways of Involvement during the research process, (3) the Support required for active and collaborative involvement, and (4) the Impact of their involvement and how it benefits the study’s outcomes.
Conclusion: People experiencing chronic stroke and aphasia are willing to be involved as PPI partners if the research team provides the necessary support. The BEFORE Recommendations for researchers to consider before commencing co-produced research with people with stroke and aphasia are provided.

SPA2023 Abstract Submission: ORAL PRESENTATION

Learning through review and reflection about how we collaborate in research and practice

Introduction: Collaborative approaches in speech-language pathology aim to benefit from lived, and indeed living, experience of clients and people important to them. Working alongside consumers in shared decision-making can lead to more effective, engaging, and safer clinical practices. Although widely used in many industries, collaborative approaches are criticised as often under operationalised and “fuzzy” in nomenclature.

Aim: The current research review explores how collaborative approaches are defined, operationalised, implemented, and evaluated in speech-language pathology research and practice.

Methods: Narrative review methodology was used. Diverse search terms reflected the breadth of collaborative approaches available to clinicians and researchers, and the diverse nature of speech-language pathology. Speech-language pathology is certainly not a one-trick pony profession! A systematic search of three databases and hand searching were completed. Following screening, forty-three articles were identified for data extraction and narrative synthesis.

Results: Diverse approaches, terminology, and tools for collaboration were identified. Preliminary findings indicate that there is great variability in when and how collaborators are involved in the research process. Particularly noted were the varied terms used to describe collaborative partners. This presentation will discuss considerations with regards to the literature.

Conclusion: Collaborative approaches can strengthen outcomes. Authors reflect on collaborative work in speech-language pathology and respect the values based and evolving nature of this field and the people with living experience that contribute to collective knowledge. This presentation contributes to the resources available to support decision-making and work together with partners, encouraging us to reflect, respect and respond.

Key words: narrative review, collaborative approaches, consumers, lived experience, participatory research approaches, person-centred practice.