tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post4848579055431853830..comments2024-03-24T15:07:18.773+01:00Comments on The Stuttering Brain: PEVOS: finally!Tom Weidighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-70047737252616482822009-10-07T13:27:54.238+02:002009-10-07T13:27:54.238+02:00I agree Norbert that
1) treatment rarely has neg...I agree Norbert that <br /><br />1) treatment rarely has negative benefits, and if, mostly short-term.<br /><br />2) treatment is nearly always increasing the quality of life and reducing the handicap of stuttering.<br /><br />3) This is most true for first-timers with decreasing impact for further treatment.<br /><br />4) Treatment can also be in form of self-help group, attendance of a stuttering conference, and reading about stuttering<br /><br />5) I still maintain that there is little evidence that any treatment delivers good long-term fluency gain in a good number of patients. The gain are in life quality and reduction of handicap.<br /><br />TomTom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-53413212959465970842009-10-07T11:23:27.550+02:002009-10-07T11:23:27.550+02:00I am sure there could be anecdotal statements abou...I am sure there could be anecdotal statements about therapies but they'd not be valid or meaningful. I could certainly make anecdotal statements about therapy right now. But you know me, I won't! :-) <br /><br />Re improvement - I have yet to hear of anyone who turned out to be worse off because of therapy. That's therapy with a capital 'T' from a qualified practitioner rather than a quack, of course. <br /><br />I think there's enough evidence other than PEVOS that any therapy, i.e. looking at one's stammer, and one's own attitudes and emotions around stammering, on the whole is a beneficial exercise. Benefit might be marginal, as you say, and not long-lasting and I am not making any claims other than that. <br /><br />I'm also not certain that the phone calls would have got any easier. They were too few, and with too much of a distance between them, to have any kind of habituation effect that would make the latter ones easier, I'd say. <br /><br />Still, that leaves the 34% that could not be reached but you're just as entitled to assume that therapy was so wonderfully successful that stammering was no issue for them any more as to say that they were damaged by therapy. We just don't know. I personally don't think that 34% is an unreasonable drop out. I believe I read somewhere that about 15% of any personal address database will become invalid each year.Norbert @ BSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08777494290357326626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-31298483374086209152009-10-07T08:49:15.098+02:002009-10-07T08:49:15.098+02:00Wait Norbert! First, the study does give us clues ...Wait Norbert! First, the study does give us clues on the overall results after all we have 66 patients that is a big sample. Second, they did not want to look at between therapy differences, because they rightly say that the sample is too small. But I would not be surprised if they could make more qualitative or anectodal statements on which is better than another in private. Third, I am not convinced about positive results. They found that the 66% of patients improved marginally, and this could be due to the fact that they stuttered a bit more before treatment because the phone call was very stressful and after four calls they were a bit more relaxed. AND, we are missing 34% which might as Dave suggested not have benefited as much or got worse. SO overall, there is in my view no good evidence of good benefits for the overall population of people who attended treatment!!!! That is shocking!Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-39043672510184319872009-10-07T00:14:14.987+02:002009-10-07T00:14:14.987+02:00I think the devil's in the detail. AS far as I...I think the devil's in the detail. AS far as I can make out, the pilot study merely ascertained that in principle this is a workable way of proceeding if one were do do a large-scale study. Other than that it seemed that for the 2/3 of those who completed the data set, therapy in general has been a useful and beneficial exercise. We kind of knew the latter fact. Would be interesting to hear Tom comment on the full report (in German) which I believe is available from the BV? I haven't seen it yet.Norbert @ BSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08777494290357326626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-76620141127886434782009-10-06T20:03:20.157+02:002009-10-06T20:03:20.157+02:00I will post a German translation.I will post a German translation.Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-43082665009275182292009-10-06T17:55:04.998+02:002009-10-06T17:55:04.998+02:00Thanks for highlighting this study. I wonder what ...Thanks for highlighting this study. I wonder what the one third from whom they couldn't get data were like? Were they PWS who didn't improve and therefore did not want to participate any more? If so, then the final improvement scores are suspect and sadly the experiment shows that the therapy was not effective.Dave Rowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05075890277885768921noreply@blogger.com