ArticleBMC health services research2025
Process evaluation of a complex intervention in augmentative and alternative communication care in Germany: a mixed methods study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Germany, clear care pathways for people without natural speech who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) are currently lacking. Therefore, AAC is often not sustainably implemented in everyday life. For this reason, a complex intervention was developed that supplements existing AAC consultation with additional AAC training, AAC therapy, and case management. This article presents the results of the process evaluation of the complex intervention. It examines (1) how caregivers and AAC consultants rate the intervention (2), which contextual factors influence its implementation, and (3) the acceptance, use competence, and use of the new AAC system.
methodsThe process evaluation used a mixed methods design. Quantitative data were collected with a longitudinal survey of caregivers of AAC users in the intervention and comparison groups at three time points (T0: after AAC consultation; T1: 4 weeks after AAC system receipt; T2: 4 months after AAC system receipt). Semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with caregivers of AAC users and with AAC consultants. The quantitative data were analysed descriptively and with nonparametric mean value comparisons. The qualitative results were analysed using structured qualitative content analysis.
resultsThe evaluation and presentation of results were based on the Medical Research Council process evaluation guidance by Moore et al. The intervention elements were rated positively. AAC training and therapy enabled the participants to use the AAC system effectively in different contexts. Case management provided support, particularly in the event of problems in the care process. However, the results also show the heterogeneity of the intervention, as it depended on various contextual factors. Overall, acceptance, use competence, and use of the AAC system were rated higher in the intervention group than in the comparison group.
conclusionsThe process evaluation illustrates various contextual factors that can influence the implementation of the AAC intervention. The results highlight the potential of the intervention to improve AAC care and establish a sustainable use of AAC systems in everyday life. In addition, the process evaluation provides indications of how AAC interventions can be adapted for successful implementation.
trial registrationGrant number 01NVF17019.
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.