Understanding the experience of users of communication aids and applications through focus group discussions with people with aphasia and family members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study sought to identify the communication needs of persons with aphasia (PWA) and of their spouses, that could ultimately be addressed with current communication aids or applications (CA/A). Among users of CA/A we solicited their opinions and experiences with current CA/A. In contrast, among those not using CA/A, we explored why they did not use CA/A. A qualitative experiential research design was used through two in-person focus groups, one in English and one in French, at a large rehabilitation hospital in the Greater Montréal region (Canada). Participants' responses were recorded, transcribed and analyzed. The thematic analysis that ensued allowed the identification of four main themes. The first theme reflects participants' observations and experiences when communicating with aphasia. The second theme regrouped responses related to successful communication with the help of CA/A. The participants' challenges and dissatisfaction with CA/A were grouped into the third theme. Lastly, a fourth theme included participants' general views about CA/A and their wishes for further development. Participants' experience with communication difficulties following aphasia and the barriers and potential facilitators to adoption of CA/A were brought to the forefront. They also highlighted those features necessary to ensuring functional uptake of CA/A by those who would benefit from it. Finally, the importance of providing training to the communication partner and sensitizing the public to the impact of aphasia on people's daily lives and on the potential benefits of using CA/A were raised as necessary future actions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".