BackgroundSince Coronavirus disease 2019, telepractice delivery has become increasingly integrated in the standard practice of speech-language pathologists and audiologists. It is therefore important to synthesize existing knowledge on this intervention modality. However, limited evidence exists regarding its use in children. This meta-analysis evaluated evidence on the effectiveness of telepractice compared to in-person intervention for children aged ≤ 12 years.MethodA systematic search was conducted for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials comparing telepractice and in-person intervention for children ≤12 years. Eight databases were searched: PsychINFO, Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts, Education Resources Information Centre, Web of Sciences, PubMed, Embase, the Joanna Briggs Institute database, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature.ResultsSeven studies on speech-language pathology intervention met the inclusion criteria; no audiology studies could be included. Effect sizes were calculated for 31 outcomes reported across both conditions (telepractice and in-person intervention). Eight effect sizes were inverted, allowing all positive values to indicate favourable intervention outcomes. Overall, interventions resulted in moderate to high effects, with telepractice intervention resulting in equal or larger effect sizes compared to in-person intervention.ConclusionTelepractice intervention demonstrated outcomes comparable or better than in-person intervention across speech-language pathology subdomains. This applies to both child-related and caregiver-related outcomes, as well as for child-directed (typically for children ≥ 4 years) and caregiver-mediated approaches, where caregivers are trained to implement the strategies at home with their child. These findings suggest that telepractice intervention is an effective alternative to in-person intervention.
Vanderauwera et al. (2026) studied this question.