Life-Course Access to Speech and Language Therapy: A Rights-Based AAAQ Policy Mapping in Türkiye and Four Comparator Settings.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Access to Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) is often described in terms of whether a service exists. However, formal recognition alone does not ensure that individuals can obtain timely, affordable, coordinated, and sustainable care across the life course. The use of the rights-based Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, and Quality (AAAQ) framework remains limited in comparative policy research on SLT access. England (UK), Sweden, Australia, and the United States were purposively selected to capture contrasting arrangements in statutory coordination, financial protection, payer structure, and telehealth codification. The objective of this study was to compare how Türkiye and these four settings translate formal SLT entitlement into operational access conditions across the AAAQ dimensions. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A comparative policy analysis was conducted using a structured document-mapping approach. Primary evidence sources comprised official legislation, statutory instruments, regulations, ministry and agency guidance, reimbursement and coding rules, official standards, and selected official implementation materials. Searches were conducted between 1 June and 20 September 2025, with update verification through 27 November 2025. Twenty-four eligible evidence sources were included. Data were extracted using a standardized form and analysed through directed qualitative content analysis with AAAQ as the deductive framework. Findings were subsequently synthesized across three cross-cutting policy axes: life-course continuity, the education-health interface, and telerehabilitation implementation. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: All five settings recognized SLT as a health benefit, an education entitlement, or both, but differed markedly in how entitlement was translated into implementable access conditions. England (UK) showed the strongest statutory continuity for children and young people through the SEND framework. Official patient-facing and regional sources from Sweden indicated comparatively transparent outpatient fee and high-cost protection arrangements. Australia and the United States illustrated how reimbursement codification and documentation rules can support administrative traceability and tele-enabled delivery. In Türkiye, the main issue was not the absence of normative entitlement, but the extent to which access remained sensitive to dispersed reimbursement definitions, administrative interpretation, less explicit cross-sector procedures, and limited codification of tele-SLT within the reviewed reimbursement architecture. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Access to SLT should be understood not simply as service presence, but as a system-design issue shaped by financing, documentation, coordination, and quality-governance arrangements. For Türkiye, policy development may depend less on further recognition of SLT-related need and more on strengthening implementation architecture through clearer reimbursement itemization, more explicit education-health coordination, and tele-SLT coding linked to documentation and reporting standards. More broadly, the findings suggest that equitable and sustainable SLT access requires attention to how entitlement is operationalized across the life course. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Access to speech and language therapy is often discussed in terms of service availability or formal entitlement. However, less is known about how entitlement is translated into practical access conditions across health and education systems, particularly from a comparative rights-based perspective. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge Using the Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability and Quality (AAAQ) framework, this study shows that differences in SLT access across Türkiye and four comparator settings lie not simply in whether services are formally recognized, but in how entitlement is operationalized through financing, documentation, cross-sector coordination and telehealth arrangements. Three system-level mechanisms emerged as particularly important: life-course continuity, the education-health interface and the operationalization of tele-SLT through reimbursement and reporting arrangements. What are the potential or clinical implications of this work? For SLT practice, service planning and policy, improving access requires attention to implementation architecture as well as formal entitlement. Clearer reimbursement and documentation rules, stronger education-health coordination and explicit tele-SLT coding may support more predictable, traceable and equitable access across the life course.