Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the type of provision of community service investment projects by method and scale of provision, to expand speech-language rehabilitation programs. Methods: This study was conducted on 17 local governments that are implementing community service investment projects. The services of 17 local governments were categorized by method and scale of provision, their programs were analyzed, and services including speech-language pathologists were identified. Results: When classifying the types of community service investment projects by delivery method, institutional-visited services accounted for the highest rate of 67.4%. Of the 328 community service investment projects, 37 services (11.3%) were provided by speech-language pathologists. Of the 223 institutional visit services, 22 (9.6%) services included speech-language pathologists and speech-language related rehabilitation, and there were no home visit services. Regarding the scale, the highest portion (43.3%) of the total 328 services was ‘group type’. A total of 328 local community service investment projects were implemented by 17 local governments, 37 (11.3%) of which were provided by speech-language pathologists. Among the community services provided by size, 23.1% of the services specified by speech-language rehabilitation and/or speech-language pathologists were provided. Conclusions: The speech-language rehabilitation services were biased toward ‘individual’ and complex services, and the proportion of ‘group type’ services was very small. Accordingly, speech-language rehabilitation services should expand the scope of speech-language rehabilitation services at the ‘group type’ scale nationwide. In addition, delivery methods should be diverse by providing new services in the post-Corona era.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the type of provision of community service investment projects by method and scale of provision, to expand speech-language rehabilitation programs. Methods: This study was conducted on 17 local governments that are implementing community service investment projects. The services of 17 local governments were categorized by method and scale of provision, their programs were analyzed, and services including speech-language pathologists were identified. Results: When classifying the types of community service investment projects by delivery method, institutional-visited services accounted for the highest rate of 67.4%. Of the 328 community service investment projects, 37 services (11.3%) were provided by speech-language pathologists. Of the 223 institutional visit services, 22 (9.6%) services included speech-language pathologists and speech-language related rehabilitation, and there were no home visit services. Regarding the scale, the highest portion (43.3%) of the total 328 services was ‘group type’. A total of 328 local community service investment projects were implemented by 17 local governments, 37 (11.3%) of which were provided by speech-language pathologists. Among the community services provided by size, 23.1% of the services specified by speech-language rehabilitation and/or speech-language pathologists were provided. Conclusions: The speech-language rehabilitation services were biased toward ‘individual’ and complex services, and the proportion of ‘group type’ services was very small. Accordingly, speech-language rehabilitation services should expand the scope of speech-language rehabilitation services at the ‘group type’ scale nationwide. In addition, delivery methods should be diverse by providing new services in the post-Corona era.
INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
