Supporting Communication Access of People With Communication Disabilities and Communication Differences in UNCRPD‐Ratified Countries: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".