Who Helps Children With Communication Disorders Access Sex Education? Practice Patterns of Speech-Language Pathologists and Psychologists.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Who Helps Children With Communication Disorders Access Sex Education? Practice Patterns of Speech-Language Pathologists and Psychologists.
Authors: Wolford, Laura L.1 lwolford@mghihp.edu, Jansen, Kate L.2
Source: American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Mar2024, Vol. 33 Issue 2, p848-865. 18p.
Subject Terms: *Speech therapists, *Health services accessibility, *Sex education, *Communicative disorders, Psychologists, Psychology of children with disabilities, Descriptive statistics, Physician practice patterns, Psychosocial factors, Sexual health, Medical practice
Abstract: Purpose: Children with communication disorders are often systematically excluded from sex education curricula. They may also have difficulty accessing the curricula because of the materials' linguistic and pragmatic complexity. Even curricula written for children with intellectual disabilities do not typically include considerations for communication disorders. This places them at risk for sexually transmitted infections, sexual health misinformation, and sexual assault. Yet, it is unclear which professionals are assisting children with communication disorders to access sex education. Method: North American speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and clinical psychologists (N = 112) completed a survey that asked about their practice patterns in helping children access sex education, as well as their beliefs about the importance of sex education, how disabilities affect sex education, perceived barriers, and their self-efficacy and role in addressing sex education. Results: Although SLPs and clinical psychologists believed that communication disorders could affect sex education and consent and felt they had some responsibility for helping their clients in accessing sex education, they did not regularly assist their clients in this area. Both groups of clinicians were divided in their views of their own roles and responsibility. SLPs were especially polarized; every question about their role in addressing sex education included SLPs who fully agreed and some who fully disagreed with the statement. Conclusions: Children with communication disorders do not consistently receive assistance accessing sex education curricula from either SLPs or clinical psychologists. Clinicians need education to support them addressing sex education and clear guidance about their roles in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Purpose: Children with communication disorders are often systematically excluded from sex education curricula. They may also have difficulty accessing the curricula because of the materials' linguistic and pragmatic complexity. Even curricula written for children with intellectual disabilities do not typically include considerations for communication disorders. This places them at risk for sexually transmitted infections, sexual health misinformation, and sexual assault. Yet, it is unclear which professionals are assisting children with communication disorders to access sex education. Method: North American speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and clinical psychologists (N = 112) completed a survey that asked about their practice patterns in helping children access sex education, as well as their beliefs about the importance of sex education, how disabilities affect sex education, perceived barriers, and their self-efficacy and role in addressing sex education. Results: Although SLPs and clinical psychologists believed that communication disorders could affect sex education and consent and felt they had some responsibility for helping their clients in accessing sex education, they did not regularly assist their clients in this area. Both groups of clinicians were divided in their views of their own roles and responsibility. SLPs were especially polarized; every question about their role in addressing sex education included SLPs who fully agreed and some who fully disagreed with the statement. Conclusions: Children with communication disorders do not consistently receive assistance accessing sex education curricula from either SLPs or clinical psychologists. Clinicians need education to support them addressing sex education and clear guidance about their roles in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10580360
DOI:10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00326