口腔癌治疗对言语和吞咽功能具有破坏性影响，然而目前关于言语病理学实践的了解甚少。通过电子邮件向言语病理学部门、社交媒体平台和专业在线论坛发送在线调查问卷，对言语病理学家进行了调查。调查问题涵盖了人口统计学、服务提供、言语和吞咽干预的类型和时机，以及对实践的影响和障碍。共有43名工作在澳大利亚（n=41）和新西兰（n=2）的言语病理学家完成了调查。言语病理学家明确推荐言语和吞咽的补偿策略，但主动干预的频率明显较低。吞咽的结果衡量主要使用仪器评估（n=31, 94%）或绩效评分（n=25, 76%），而言语的评估通常是通过可懂性判断进行的（n=30, 91%）。言语病理学家在决策过程中使用了多种支持手段，特别是专家意见（n=81, 38.2%）。他们报告了时间和人员限制（n=55, 55%）以及缺乏相关证据（n=35, 35%）是实证服务提供的最大障碍。澳大利亚和新西兰的言语病理学家在口腔癌患者言语和吞咽康复方面存在差异性。本研究强调了制定基于证据的指南的必要性，该指南明确了筛查过程、主动康复协议和有效的结果衡量方法与该人群。

Treatment for oral cancer has debilitating effects on speech and swallowing, however, little is known about current speech-language pathology practice.An online survey of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) was disseminated via emails to speech pathology departments, social media platforms, and professional online forums. Survey questions captured demographics, service delivery, type and timing of speech and swallowing interventions, and influences and barriers to practice.Forty-three SLPs working in Australia (n = 41) and New Zealand (n = 2) completed the survey. SLPs recommended speech and swallowing compensatory strategies significantly more frequently than active intervention. Swallowing outcomes measures were either instrumental (n = 31, 94%) or performance ratings (n = 25, 76%), whereas speech was measured informally with judgements of intelligibility (n = 30, 91%). SLPs used a range of supports for their decision making, particularly expert opinion (n = 81, 38.2%). They reported time and staffing limitations (n = 55, 55%) and a lack of relevant evidence (n = 35, 35%) as the largest barriers to evidence-based service delivery.There is variability amongst SLPs in Australia and New Zealand regarding rehabilitation of speech and swallowing for people with oral cancer. This study highlights the need for evidence-based guidelines outlining best practice for screening processes, active rehabilitation protocols, and valid outcome measures with this population.