Barriers and facilitators to accommodations in the workplace for adults who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace accommodations can reduce barriers to employment for people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), however, the lack of accommodations continues to challenge participation in employment. This systematic review identified and analyzed barriers and facilitators to implementing workplace accommodations for adults (19 years and over) who use AAC. A systematic search of nine databases was conducted to identify relevant studies using the search terms <b>“</b>AAC<b>”</b> and <b>“</b>workplace accommodations<b>”</b> and variations of each term. Results were imported into Covidence. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Results were presented using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. The Oxford levels of evidence and Confidence in Evidence from Review of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) were used to assess the quality of the studies and confidence in findings, respectively. Environmental barriers related mainly to attitudes and technology, and personal barriers related to job qualifications, education, and work-related skills. A combination of facilitators such as personal strengths, access to technology, and supportive relationships contributed to successful implementation of accommodations. The findings of this review suggest that implementing workplace accommodations for adults who use AAC strategies is complex and further research is needed to advance practices and policies that support the implementation of workplace accommodations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".