Collaborative design of accessible information with people with aphasia

ABSTRACT

Background: People with aphasia report preferences for specially formatted health information materials, but there is little evidence that modified materials result in improved comprehension. Potential explanations for this include language included not taking account of aphasic processing difficulties, topics unrelated to aphasia, lack of clarity regarding the use of images, and the lack of end-user involvement in the design. Additionally, no definitive criteria for production of accessible information have been identified.

Aims: The first aim of this study was to collaborate with people with aphasia in an iterative design process to develop and finalise accessible information materials. The second aim was to identify definitive criteria for use in the future production of information materials for people with aphasia.

Methods and procedure: Prototype materials were developed for the study, based on criteria identified from the existing research into aphasia-accessible information, and on the evidence base concerning language processing in aphasia. Fourteen people with aphasia took part in two rounds of consensus group meetings and viewed information about aphasia presented within the prototype materials. Consensus points were identified within the groups through discussion and through ratings using Likert scales. The set of consensus points and ratings were adapted into criteria for graphic designers to incorporate into subsequent designs of the materials, in order to generate a final version, and related criteria.

Outcomes and results: The group discussions and the ratings of materials led to the identification of an agreed layout within which to present information, and specific criteria for the following: information consisting of one proposition expressed via everyday words and canonical syntactic forms; one or two images relating directly to keywords; sans serif typography with keyword emphasis. Individual preferences with regard to image types were identified. Novel criteria were identified in the study, relating to layout, language, images and typography. These were added to the original set of criteria to form definitive criteria for use in the development of accessible aphasia materials.

Conclusions: This study successfully involved people with aphasia in the design process to produce novel materials, and related design criteria. The resulting materials and criteria differ from those previously proposed, by reflecting directly people with aphasia’s views and preferences, and by incorporating language and images suitable for people with aphasia, based on the existing research evidence and the outcomes of this study. The materials and criteria have the potential to improve people with aphasia’s understanding of health information.

KEYWORDS:

• Aphasia
• health information
• accessible
• criteria
• iterative design

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their gratitude to the people with aphasia who took part in the study. Their participation was central to this project.

Disclosure statement

R Herbert, C Haw and E Gregory co-authored with S Brumfitt and C Brown ‘Accessible Information Guidelines’ via the Stroke Association website in 2012, which were devised from the work carried out here. https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/…/accessible_information_guidelines.pdf1_.pd.

R Herbert C Haw and E Gregory developed the Communicate Stroke resource, based on the work described here, which was commissioned by the Stroke Association (2012). Materials from that resource are integrated into the Stroke Association’s new online information resource ‘My Stroke Guide’. https://mystrokeguide.com/user

Copyright agreement

The template design and related images developed in this project are the copyright of the Stroke Association and are reprinted here with permission of the Stroke Association (www.stroke.org.uk)

Supplementary material

Supplementary data for this article can be accessed here.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. There are reports in the literature of reverse effects in frequency (e.g. Marshall, Pring, Chiat & Robson, 2001), imageability (e.g. Breedin, Saffran, & Coslett, 1994) word length (e.g. Howard & Gatehouse, 2006), and of better processing of passives than actives in primary progressive aphasia (Zimmerer et al., 2014) but these are infrequent findings.

2. Participants viewed the final version at an informal meeting one month after the last group but no further data were collected.

Additional information

Funding

This research was undertaken with the support of grants from the Stroke Association [TSA FF 2010/04 and TSA FF 2011/01].