Barriers and Facilitators to Communication Accessibility as Perceived by People With Aphasia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Communication access is a human right, but many individuals with communication impairments face challenges accessing their environments. As part of a larger study investigating barriers and facilitators to communication access in the retail/service industry, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the experiences of people with aphasia (PWA) accessing goods and services in their communities. Methods: Nine PWA were interviewed about their experiences accessing retail businesses and services. Interviews were coded and thematically analyzed to identify key themes related to barriers and facilitators to communication during business interactions. Stakeholders on the research team included two PWA, who provided input throughout the research process. Results: Three main themes were found: supporting communication, aphasia awareness and education, and respect for PWA. Codes within each theme comprised facilitators that led to positive experiences and barriers that led to negative business interactions. Discussion/Conclusions: People with aphasia identified tangible ways that retail businesses can be made more communicatively accessible. Stakeholders with aphasia made meaningful contributions to the research process. Future work will investigate how these findings, integrated with business perspectives, can be used to support businesses in applying strategies to become more communicatively accessible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it