A qualitative evidence synthesis of the experiences and perspectives of communicating using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)

References

• Beukelman D, Light J. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore (MA): Brookes; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Verdonck M, Gacek C, et al. A qualitative metasynthesis of the meaning of speech-generating devices for people with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2018;35(2):69–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J, Campbell K. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1–3):31–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter S, Enderby P, Evans P, et al. Interventions using high-technology communication devices: a state-of-the-art review. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2012;64(3):137–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund S, Light J. Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part I – what is a “good” outcome? Augment Altern Commun. 2006;22(4):284–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wylie K, McAllister L, Davidson B, et al. Changing practice: implications of the world report on disability for responding to communication disability in under-served populations. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013;15(1):1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch Y, Murray J, Moulam L, et al. Decision-making in communication aid recommendations in the UK: cultural and contextual influencers. Augment Altern Commun. 2019;35(3):180–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh J, Gooding K, Gibbons E, et al. How do patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration (US). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. 2009. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-drugs-gen/documents/document/ucm193282.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Swett C, Surins H, Welton C, Shepherd TA, Renzoni AM, Ryan S. Toward greater involvement of youth with complex communication needs in the selection of augmentative and alternative communication devices. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019. doi:10.1080/17483107.2018.1534997.
   Google Scholar
• Delarosa E, Horner S, Eisenberg C, et al. Family impact of assistive technology scale: development of a measurement scale for parents of children with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28(3):171–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broomfield K, Harrop D, Judge S, et al. Appraising the quality of tools used to record a patient-reported outcome measures in users of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(10):2669–2683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D. Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: a new definition for a new era of communication? Augment Altern Commun. 2014;30(1):1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broomfield K, Sage K. Valuing the unspoken: collaborating beyond words. In Christer K, Craig C, Wolstenholme D, editors. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Design4Health. Sheffield, UK. 2018. Vol 1: p. 51.
   Google Scholar
• Nind M. Conducting qualitative research with people with learning, communication and other disabilities: methodological challenges. 2008. National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/491/
   Google Scholar
• Borg S, Agius M, Agius L. A user and their family’s perspective of the use of a low-tech vs a high-tech AAC system. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:811–818.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davis R. Reflections of nine participants regarding their experiences of being african American and using augmentative and alternative communication across their lifespan at home, school, vocation, and community [Doctoral Dissertation]. Pennsylvania (PA): Pennsylvania State University; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Hodge S. Why is the potential of augmentative and alternative communication not being realized? Exploring the experiences of people who use communication aids. Disabil Soc. 2007;22(5):457–471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter S, Enderby P, Evans P, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the use of high-technology augmentative and alternative communication devices: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012;47(2):115–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballin L, Balandin S, Stancliffe R. The speech generating device (SGD) mentoring programme: an evaluation by participants. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(3):195–203.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murphy J, Oliver T. The use of talking mats to support people with dementia and their carers to make decisions together: use of talking mats with people with dementia. Health Soc Care Community. 2013;21(2):171–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dattilo J, Estrella G, Estrella L, et al. I have chosen to live life abundantly”: perceptions of leisure by adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2008;24(1):16–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trembath D, Balandin S, Stancliffe R, et al. Communication is everything: the experiences of volunteers who use AAC. Augment Altern Commun. 2010;26(2):75–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell J. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Programme. 2006. ESCR Methods Programme (UK). Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.178.3100&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Involve. Briefing Notes for Researchers: Public involvement in NHS, public Health and Social Care Research. 2012. Involve; London (UK). Available from: https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/9938_INVOLVE_Briefing_Notes_WEB.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Broomfield K, Craig C, Smith S, et al. Creativity in public involvement: supporting authentic collaboration and inclusive research with seldom heard voices. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE). Questions to assist with the critical appraisal of qualitative studies. Cardiff University (UK). 2018. (http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/specialist-unit-for-review-evidence/resources/critical-appraisal-checklists).
   Google Scholar
• Lewin S, Bohren M, Rashidian A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings – paper 2: How to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a summary of qualitative findings table. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1):10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dickerson S, Stone V, Panchura C, et al. The meaning of communication: experiences with augmentative communication devices. Rehabil Nurs. 2002;27(6):215–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paterson H, Carpenter C. Using different methods to communicate: How adults with severe acquired communication difficulties make decisions about the communication methods they use and how they experience them. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(17):1522–1530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpe A, Harder K, Tam C, et al. Perceptions of writing and communication aid use among children with a physical disability. Assist Technol. 2010;22(2):87–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howery K. Out of time: the experience of speech-generating device users. Commun Disord Q. 2018;40(1):40–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bay S. Communicating through social media: How persons with ALS use the internet to maintain social connections [Doctoral dissertation] Chicago (IL): University of Illinois at Chicago; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Childes J, Palmer A, Fried-Oken M, et al. The use of technology for phone and face-to-face communication after total laryngectomy. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017;26(1):99–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caron J, Light J. Social media has opened a world of 'open communication’: experiences of adults with cerebral palsy who use augmentative and alternative communication and social media. Augment Altern Commun. 2016;32(1):25–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith M, Connolly I. Roles of aided communication: perspectives of adults who use AAC. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008;3(5):260–273.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Iacono T, Lyon K, Johnson H, et al. Experiences of adults with complex communication needs receiving and using low tech AAC: an Australian context. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(5):392–401.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin A, Newell C. Living through a computer voice: a personal account. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2013;38(3):96–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caron J, Light J. My world has expanded even though I’m stuck at home": experiences of individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who use augmentative and alternative communication and social media. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;24(4):680–695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson M, Carlsson M, Sonnander K. Communication difficulties and the use of communication strategies: from the perspective of individuals with aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012;47(2):144–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy J. I prefer contact this close": perceptions of AAC by people with motor neurone disease and their communication partners. Augment Altern Commun. 2004;20(4):259–271.
   Google Scholar
• Lund S, Light J. Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part III – contributing factors. Augment Altern Commun. 2007;23(4):323–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caron J, Light J. Social media experience of adolescents and young adults with cerebral palsy who use augmentative and alternative communication. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017;19(1):30–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce C, Edmundson A, Coleman M. Writing with voice: an investigation of the use of a voice recognition system as a writing aid for a man with aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2003;38(2):131–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung Y, Behrmann M, Banna B, et al. Perspective of high tech augmentative and alternative communication users with cerebral palsy at the post-secondary level. Perspect Augment Altern Commun. 2012;21(2):43–55.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz CE, Rohde G, Biletch E, et al. If it’s information, it’s not “bias: a scoping review and proposed nomenclature for future response-shift research. Qual Life Res. 2022;31(8):2247–2257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar