Supporting Communication Access of People With Communication Disabilities and Communication Differences in UNCRPD‐Ratified Countries: An Integrative Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) recognizes communication accessibility as a fundamental human right. Communication plays a key role in facilitating belonging, sharing and engaging with communities, allowing individuals to connect and forge relationships. Communication is fundamental to well-being and building a sense of self and identity, as well as establishing and maintaining social roles and vocation. Those with communication disabilities or differences can face many barriers to social participation, inclusion and potential financial implications. AIMS: This integrative review explores policy, practices and guidelines that support communication access of adults with communication disabilities and differences in selected English-speaking countries with UNCRPD-ratified status and well-established speech and language therapy services. METHODS: An integrative review of the literature was undertaken. A systematic search of the published, peer-reviewed literature was conducted for empirical research, and a manual search was undertaken to obtain policy, practice, or guidelines, to support communication access at a sectoral/service or community level. A multi-scalar approach situates the findings within several contexts: international law, national legislation and policy, professional guidelines and evidence from local/national projects. MAIN CONTRIBUTIONS: A multi-scalar map was developed that positions the findings on communication access within the included countries (Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), across local/national programmes and projects (n = 11), professional body and civil society guidance, regional/national legislation and policy specific to communication access and finally the international normative instrument of the UNCRPD. The findings indicate that communication accessibility is recognised as a fundamental human right, but signatory states are required to take appropriate measures to ensure access to information and communication for persons with disabilities. National legislation, policy and practice need further scrutiny in this regard. CONCLUSIONS: This review examines the complex phenomenon of communication access for people with communication disabilities and differences. The findings of this review can inform and shape practice with regard to communication accessibility as well as support advocacy efforts and future research in this area. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Communication accessibility is a fundamental human right. It can be characterized by the respectful and responsive treatment of individuals with communication disabilities and differences, along with the implementation of strategies and resources and the adaptation of environments, process and systems to facilitate effective communication. What this paper adds to existing knowledge A multi-scalar map was developed that situates the findings on communication access within the included countries (Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), across local/national programmes and projects (n = 11), professional body and civil society guidance, regional/national legislation and policies specific to communication access, and finally the international normative instrument of the UNCRPD. There is a lack of a shared understanding of communication access within empirical research, policy and local and national guidelines across the included countries. In addition, the focus on the right to communication is addressed more explicitly in some groups (and country contexts) than others. What are the practical and clinical implications of this work? This review highlights how multimodal communication is important for accessible communication. Co-design can also be harnessed to enhance communication access. The review provides an integrated set of data (empirical research, policy and guidelines) that can be used in future research, practice development and advocacy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».