Technology and its role in rehabilitation for people with cognitive-communication disability following a traumatic brain injury (TBI)

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To review the literature on communication technologies in rehabilitation for people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and: (a) determine its application to cognitive-communicative rehabilitation, and b) develop a model to guide communication technology use with people after TBI. Method: This integrative literature review of communication technology in TBI rehabilitation and cognitive-communication involved searching nine scientific databases and included 95 studies. Results: Three major types of communication technologies (assistive technology, augmentative and alternative communication technology, and information communication technology) and multiple factors relating to use of technology by or with people after TBI were categorized according to: (i) individual needs, motivations and goals; (ii) individual impairments, activities, participation and environmental factors; and (iii) technologies. While there is substantial research relating to communication technologies and cognitive rehabilitation after TBI, little relates specifically to cognitive-communication rehabilitation. Conclusions: Further investigation is needed into the experiences and views of people with TBI who use communication technologies, to provide the ‘user’ perspective and influence user-centred design. Research is necessary to investigate the training interventions that address factors fundamental for success, and any impact on communication. The proposed model provides an evidence-based framework for incorporating technology into speech pathology clinical practice and research.

KEYWORDS:

• Technology
• online
• traumatic brain injury
• communication disorder
• cognitive

Declaration of interest

This research is funded through a PhD scholarship (an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship) to the first author and Discovery Early Career Research Award (Australian Research Council) to the second author. The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this paper.