Dataset Information

Alternative and Augmentative Communication Technologies for Supporting Adults With Mild Intellectual Disabilities During Clinical Consultations: Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

People with intellectual disabilities (IDs) face significant communication barriers when accessing health care services; they find it difficult to identify and describe conditions clearly enough to support practitioners in making an accurate diagnosis. In addition, medical professionals generally have little knowledge and understanding of the needs of people with ID, which may result in the use of consultation techniques that do not cater to their patients' skills.

Objective

This review aims to identify and synthesize the literature on alternative and augmentative communication technologies that are used to support adults with mild ID during the exchange of information with medical practitioners.

Methods

We performed a scoping review of studies published in English that describe the technologies that are used to promote communication with patients with mild ID during medical consultations. The databases searched were PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar. A qualitative framework-based approach was used to synthesize the data and discern key recurring themes across the identified literature.

Results

Of the 1557 articles screened, 15 (0.96%) met our inclusion criteria. The bulk of the communication aids used focused on low-tech solutions, including patient passports, note-based prompts, Talking Mats, health diaries, and easy-read information sheets. Their influence on current practice ranged from advancing medical professionals' knowledge of the health and communication needs of people with ID to increasing interagency collaboration, patient advocacy skills, and health promotion activities. The major barriers to the implementation of low-tech aids were a lack of portability and increased maintenance efforts. Only 3 studies explored the use of mobile apps to promote communication. Their findings indicated that high-tech solutions offer greater customization with regard to the accessibility and health care needs of people with ID.

Conclusions

Alternative and augmentative communication technologies have the potential to increase the quality of care provided to patients with mild ID; however, little work has been carried out in this area. Greater emphasis must be placed on (high-tech) two-way communication aids that empower patients to become involved in decisions regarding their care. Quantitative evaluation methods should be used to discern the true benefits of such aids, and researchers should describe their study protocols in depth to promote replication and generalizability.

SUBMITTER: Gibson RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8235287 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite a surge in health information and communication technology (ICT), there is little evidence of lowered cost or increased quality of care. ICT may support patients, health care providers, and other stakeholders through complex rehabilitation trajectories by offering digital platforms for collaboration, shared decision-making, and safe storage of data. Yet, the questions on how ICT can become a useful tool and how the complex intersection between producers and users of ICT should be solved are challenging.ObjectiveThis study aims to review the literature on how ICTs are used to foster collaboration among the patient, the provider, and other stakeholders.MethodsThis scoping review follows the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), AMED (EBSCOhost), and Scopus. Unpublished studies were extracted from OAIster, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, NARIC, and Google Scholar. Eligible papers addressed or described a remote dialogue between stakeholders using ICT to address goals and means, provide decision support, or evaluate certain treatment modalities within a rehabilitation context. Due to the rapid development of ICTs, searches included studies published in the period of 2018-2022.ResultsIn total, 3206 papers (excluding duplicates) were screened. Three papers met all inclusion criteria. The papers varied in design, key findings, and key challenges. These 3 studies reported outcomes such as improvements in activity performance, participation, frequency of leaving the house, improved self-efficacy, change in patients' perspective on possibilities, and change in professionals' understanding of patients' priorities. However, a misfit between the participants' needs and the technology offered, complexity and lack of availability of the technology, difficulties with implementation and uptake, and lack of flexibility in setup and maintenance reduced the value of ICT for those involved in the studies. The low number of included papers is probably due to the complexity of remote collaboration with ICT.ConclusionsICT has the potential to facilitate communication among stakeholders in the complex and collaborative context of rehabilitation trajectories. This scoping review indicates that there is a paucity of research considering remote ICT-supported collaboration in health care and rehabilitation trajectories. Furthermore, current ICT builds on eHealth literacy, which may differ among stakeholders, and the lack of sufficient eHealth literacy and ICT knowledge creates barriers for access to health care and rehabilitation. Lastly, the aim and results of this review are probably most relevant in high-income countries.

Project description:Augmentative and alternative communication brain-computer interface (AAC-BCI) systems are intended to offer communication access to people with severe speech and physical impairment (SSPI) without requiring volitional movement. As the field moves toward clinical implementation of AAC-BCI systems, research involving participants with SSPI is essential. Research has demonstrated variability in AAC-BCI system performance across users, and mixed results for comparisons of performance for users with and without disabilities. The aims of this systematic review were to (1) describe study, system, and participant characteristics reported in BCI research, (2) summarize the communication task performance of participants with disabilities using AAC-BCI systems, and (3) explore any differences in performance for participants with and without disabilities. Electronic databases were searched in May, 2018, and March, 2021, identifying 6065 records, of which 73 met inclusion criteria. Non-experimental study designs were common and sample sizes were typically small, with approximately half of studies involving five or fewer participants with disabilities. There was considerable variability in participant characteristics, and in how those characteristics were reported. Over 60% of studies reported an average selection accuracy ≤70% for participants with disabilities in at least one tested condition. However, some studies excluded participants who did not reach a specific system performance criterion, and others did not state whether any participants were excluded based on performance. Twenty-nine studies included participants both with and without disabilities, but few reported statistical analyses comparing performance between the two groups. Results suggest that AAC-BCI systems show promise for supporting communication for people with SSPI, but they remain ineffective for some individuals. The lack of standards in reporting outcome measures makes it difficult to synthesize data across studies. Further research is needed to demonstrate efficacy of AAC-BCI systems for people who experience SSPI of varying etiologies and severity levels, and these individuals should be included in system design and testing. Consensus in terminology and consistent participant, protocol, and performance description will facilitate the exploration of user and system characteristics that positively or negatively affect AAC-BCI use, and support innovations that will make this technology more useful to a broader group of people.Clinical trial registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018095345, PROSPERO: CRD42018095345.