Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35850628›Full record

SynthesisJournal of intellectual disabilities : JOID2023

Communication partners experiences of communicating with adults with severe/profound intellectual disability through augmentative and alternative communication: A mixed methods systematic review.

Edina Hanley, Anne-Marie Martin, Caroline Dalton, Elaine Lehane

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of intellectual disabilities : JOID, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edina HanleyUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-7453-3668
Anne-Marie MartinUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Caroline DaltonUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-4396-2800
Elaine LehaneUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
University College Cork · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People with severe/profound intellectual disability experience challenges in communicating and require their communication partners to adapt to their means of communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) is recognised as a potential means to meet their communication needs. Interventions need to be aimed at both the individual and their communication partners. We conducted a mixed methods systematic review of the literature to synthesise evidence on communication partners experience of communicating with adults with severe/profound intellectual disability through AAC. Eight publications met the inclusion criteria, they underwent thematic synthesis where four themes emerged. A shared commitment to communication partnership is fundamental for the effective and efficient use of AAC. However, there was a disconnect between communication partners perceptions of their roles and responsibilities. This review prompts further research to explore communication partners perceptions of their roles and responsibilities in the use of AAC with people with severe/profound intellectual disabilities.

Indexed as

Communication Devices for People with DisabilitiesCommunication DisordersIntellectual DisabilityAdultCommunicationHumansaugmentative and alternative communicationcommunicationcommunication partnerssevere/profound intellectual disability

Identifiers

PMID35850628
PMCPMC10647903
OpenAlexW4285802524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.