Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38919639›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024

Comparing and contrasting barriers in augmentative alternative communication use in nonspeaking autism and complex communication needs: multi-stakeholder perspectives.

Shu H Yau, Kaylynn Choo, Jane Tan, Olivia Monson, Stephanie Bovell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Shu H YauSchool of Psychology, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Kaylynn ChooSchool of Psychology, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Jane TanSchool of Psychology, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Olivia MonsonSchool of Psychology, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Stephanie BovellSchool of Psychology, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

augmentative alternative communicationautismcommunication partnerscomplex communication needsminimally verbalnonspeakingstakeholder perspectives

Identifiers

PMID38919639
PMCPMC11197385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.