Who said dialogue conversations are easy? The communication between communication vulnerable people and health-care professionals: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into how communication vulnerable people and health-care professionals experience the communication in dialogue conversations, and how they adjust their conversation using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) or other communication strategies. METHODS: Communication vulnerable clients and health-care professionals in a long-term care institution were observed during a dialogue conversation (n = 11) and subsequently interviewed (n = 22) about their experiences with the conversation. The clients had various communication difficulties due to different underlying aetiologies, such as acquired brain injury or learning disorder. Results from the observations and interviews were analysed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Seven key themes emerged regarding the experiences of clients and professionals: clients blame themselves for miscommunications; the relevance of both parties preparing the conversation; a quiet and familiar environment benefitting communication; giving clients enough time; the importance and complexity of nonverbal communication; the need to tailor communication to the client; prejudices and inexperience regarding AAC. The observations showed that some professionals had difficulties using appropriate communication strategies and all professionals relied mostly on verbal or nonverbal communication strategies. CONCLUSION: Professionals were aware of the importance of preparation, sufficient time, a suitable environment and considering nonverbal communication in dialogue conversations. However, they struggled with adequate use of communication strategies, such as verbal communication and AAC. There is a lack of knowledge about AAC, and professionals and clients need to be informed about the potential of AAC and how this can help them achieve equal participation in dialogue conversations in addition to other communication strategies.

Optimising Service Delivery of AAC AT Devices and Compensating AT for Dyslexia.

To promote successful use of Assistive Technology (AT) supporting Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and compensating for dyslexia, the last steps of their provision, delivery and instruction, use, maintenance and evaluation, were optimised. In co-creation with all stakeholders based on a list of requirements an integral method and tools were developed.

The role of the physical environment in conversations between people who are communication vulnerable and health-care professionals: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: The role of the physical environment in communication between health-care professionals and persons with communication problems is a neglected area. This study provides an overview of factors in the physical environment that play a role in communication during conversations between people who are communication vulnerable and health-care professionals. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted using the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. The PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were screened, and a descriptive and thematic analysis was completed. RESULTS: Sixteen publications were included. Six factors in the physical environment play a role in conversations between people who are communication vulnerable and health-care professionals: (1) lighting, (2) acoustic environment, (3) humidity and temperature, (4) setting and furniture placement, (5) written information, and (6) availability of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) tools. These factors indicated barriers and strategies related to the quality of these conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively small and simple strategies to adjust the physical environment (such as adequate lighting, quiet environment, providing pen and paper) can support people who are communication vulnerable to be more involved in conversations. It is recommended that health-care professionals have an overall awareness of the potential influence of environmental elements on conversations. Implications for rehabilitation The physical environment is an important feature in the success or disturbance of communication. Small adjustments to the physical environment in rehabilitation can contribute to a communication-friendly environment for conversations with people who are communication vulnerable. Professionals should consider adjustments with regard to the following factors in the physical environment during conversations with people who are communication vulnerable: lighting, acoustic environment, humidity and temperature, setting and furniture placement, written information, and availability of AAC (augmentative and alternative communication tools).

An investigation into the social participation of stroke survivors with aphasia.

PURPOSE: Aphasia can profoundly affect a person's capacity for social participation. The purpose of this study is to describe how people with aphasia participate socially, and to investigate the factors which are related to social participation. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 150 people with aphasia using a structured interview format, adjusted to the communicative abilities of the participants. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression analyses. Measures used were the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test, Barthel Index, Darmouth Coop Functional Health Assessment Charts/Wonca, Personal Factors Questionnaire, Environmental Factors Questionnaire and the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ). RESULTS: There was much variation in the social participation of people with aphasia (range total CIQ score: 4-25). The mean score on the CIQ was 14.2 (SD = 4.9), with the social integration subscale score contributing most to the total CIQ score. A low home integration score and a very low productivity score were found for this population. Age, gender, functional activities of daily living (ADL) performance and aphasia severity were related to social participation (adjusted R(2) = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Aphasia negatively affects long term social participation, together with other factors: functional ADL performance, age and gender. Environmental factors and personal factors do not independently contribute to the level of social participation.

Social participation through the eyes of people with aphasia.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the way people with aphasia perceive their social participation and its influencing factors. AIMS: To explore how people with aphasia perceive participation in society and to investigate influencing factors. METHODS & PROCEDURES: In this qualitative study thirteen persons with aphasia and twelve central caregivers kept a pre-structured diary over two weeks, followed by a semi-structured interview. Diaries and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by two researchers independently using codes, categories and central themes inductively. Plausibility of the analyses was discussed several times with a third independent senior-researcher. In a focus group interview, the results were discussed with the participants. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The number of social activities and the character of these activities are not as important as the perceived engagement in the social activities for the participants. People with aphasia feel isolated but want to feel engaged. They feel burdensome to others and wish to function in an ordinary way. Extracting information from conversations is difficult but they want to know what is going on. Often they are not able to work and they wish to contribute to the community in other ways. Although they often feel stigmatized, they wish to be respected. Often they do not reach that goal. Perceived factors influencing engagement in social participation can be divided into personal, social and environmental factors. The following personal factors are reported: motivation, physical and psychological condition and communication skills. The social factors are: the role of the central caregiver and the characteristics of the communication partner(s), namely willingness, skills and knowledge. The environmental factors refer to quietness and familiarity of the place in which the person with aphasia live. CONCLUSIONS: Social participation is a theoretical concept that people with aphasia do not use. Instead, people speak in terms of engagement, involvement, having a feeling of belonging. People with aphasia describe the degree of engagement in activities in social life domains (i.e. the quality of activities) as more important than the quantity of performing activities.