A systematic review of speech, language and communication interventions for children with Down syndrome from 0 to 6 years.

What is already known on the subject Speech and language acquisition is usually delayed in children with DS, yet there are currently no standard interventions for children under 6. A number of research-based interventions exist in the literature, yet it is unknown how effective these are. What this study adds to existing knowledge This is the first systematic review that specifically and exclusively focuses on parent- and non-parent-mediated speech, language and communication interventions for children with DS between 0 and 6 years of age. It complements three existing recent reviews, each of which has a slightly different focus. The previously published reviews have covered only parent-mediated interventions, excluding interventions not mediated by parents, have reviewed interventions including children and adults, without any mention of what early interventions may be like or how effective these may be for young children with DS, have not always assessed risk of bias or have focused specifically on language interventions excluding those focusing on speech articulation or pre-linguistic skills. The findings from the current review suggest that interventions that have high dosage focus on language and communication training within a naturalistic setting and are co-delivered by parents and clinicians/researchers may have the potential to provide positive outcomes for children with Diwn syndrome from 0 to 6. We acknowledge that the current evidence base comes from studies with moderate to high risk of bias, hence our conclusions are not definitive. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Speech and language therapists will have synthesized information and a quick reference point on what type of interventions exist for children with DS under the age of 6, and evidence of which intervention approaches may be promising in terms of providing positive outcomes. However, it is acknowledged that, due to the limited number of studies and the moderate to high risk of bias inherent in the evidence, there is an urgent need for higher quality intervention studies in the field to build the evidence base.