ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Comparing and contrasting barriers in augmentative alternative communication use in nonspeaking autism and complex communication needs: multi-stakeholder perspectives.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences and Contextual Factors Impacting AAC Use at Home: A Qualitative Interview Study.Topics in early childhood special education · 2025Article
- Surveying the Perspectives of Parents and Professionals on Providing Upright, Hands-Free, Self-Initiated Mobility to Children with Severe Physical and Communication Disabilities.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The comprehensibility and feasibility of the modified brief pain inventory and fear of pain questionnaire adapted for children and young people with cerebral palsy.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Augmentative alternative communication (AAC) devices or systems are often prescribed to minimally verbal or nonspeaking autistic individuals and other individuals with complex communication needs to facilitate communication or as an alternative to spoken language. AAC use can result in communication gains and improved quality of life for minimally verbal or nonspeaking individuals. Despite this, AAC abandonment is high, limiting societal participation of the individual on the autism spectrum with complex communication needs. Our study is a novel exploration of the barriers of AAC use from a multi-stakeholder perspective, and a qualitative analysis of similarities and differences between stakeholders. We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 30 parent-carers, educators and clinicians currently supporting AAC users in Western Australia and analysed the data using reflexive thematic analysis. Barriers from each stakeholder group were coded, resulting in 17 subthemes forming five main themes common to all stakeholders: Stakeholder Knowledge, Stakeholder Attitudes and Stigma, Resources, AAC User Engagement, and Device Fit. Contrasting perspectives included actual and perceived stigma associated with AAC use (parent-carers vs clinicians); different struggles with resources and knowledge (parent-carers vs clinicians and educators); and a lack of clinician communication in the processes that determined AAC-fit for school environments (educators only). Findings are discussed in the context of improving inter-stakeholder collaboration and capacity building in Australian health service and practice to better support minimally verbal or nonspeaking autistic individuals and individuals with complex communication needs. Suggestions are also offered for communication partner training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.