Communication Challenges for People with Chronic Aphasia: A Systematic Qualitative Review of Barriers and Facilitators in Local Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aphasia is an acquired communication disorder caused by a cerebral lesion, such as a stroke. People with aphasia can experience various difficulties that may involve speaking, listening, reading, or writing. These difficulties have multiple impacts on their expression of their needs, interests, and opinions. Accordingly, people with aphasia often encounter barriers and facilitators when using local services, which reduces their participation. For instance, grocery shopping or going to a coffee house can be challenging for them. Hence, this systematic review was conducted to synthetize the barriers and facilitators for people with aphasia when using local services. Following the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines, five databases and Google Scholar were searched for the literature published through April 2024. A total of nine studies were included in the present work. The results highlight that most of the barriers to communicational access to local services are environmental ones related to other people or society. A few environmental facilitators were mentioned, but these were mainly a reflection of the barriers. Personal facilitators were noted, but people with aphasia said that they were insufficient for counterbalancing environmental barriers. The results highlight the need to raise awareness of aphasia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".