Speech-Language Pathologists' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Academic Exposure to the Concept of Ageism

Purpose: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) play a significant role in treating adults over 65 years, a population expected to increase significantly by 2030. Despite this trend, there is limited research on SLPs' academic preparation, attitudes, and knowledge regarding older adults. Prior studies suggest the presence of ageist beliefs among speech-language pathology students and professionals, which may negatively impact clinical care. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of ageism in speech-language pathology, with a focus on educational exposure, perceived preparedness, and attitudes toward the older adult population. Methods: A total of 190 SLPs across the United States completed an online survey via Qualtrics. The survey, distributed through American Speech-Language-Hearing Association listservs and speech-language pathology social media groups, included questions on demographics, knowledge and attitudes about aging, and academic exposure to ageism and gerontology. It included multiple-choice, open-ended, and sliding-scale items, some drawn from prior ageism research. Thematic analysis was also conducted to determine themes from two open-ended survey questions using NVivo coding software. Results: More than 90% of participants reported little to no education on ageism during graduate training. While greater academic exposure to gerontology correlated with increased preparedness, it did not improve attitudes toward aging. Regional differences were noted: the Western United States had more exposure to aging content, while the South reported more negative attitudes. Over half (51%) witnessed or experienced ageism in clinical settings. Six themes emerged: diagnosis, beliefs about aging, external support, treatment options, patient preferences, and setting limitations. Conclusion: These findings underscore the need for stronger education on aging and ageism within speech-language pathology graduate programs to better equip professionals and reduce bias in geriatric care. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.31954863