Show summary
Background: Aphasia is an acquired language disorder causing communication problems. Strategies to facilitate communication is of importance. People from different professions are involved in aphasia rehabilitation in different ways and stages. This calls for inter-professional communication. The present paper focuses on views and terminology on AAC in aphasia.
Aims: “If you, as a lay person or as a professional, perhaps with limited knowledge about aphasia, consult published research to learn more about AAC for people with aphasia, what might you find?” This question guides the research project. The aim of this paper is an overview of reviews on AAC and aphasia, to explore how augmentative and alternative communication – in relation to people with aphasia – is defined, framed and presented in published research.
Method and Results: The project method is twofold. Pilot phase: An initial quantitative analysis of papers on AAC and aphasia published in two strategically chosen journals. Project phase: An overview of reviews (Hunt et al., 2018), based on a systematic search in ten databases, aiming at qualitative analysis and textual narrative synthesis. The quantitative analysis is an exploratory tool, aiming at challenging our preconceptions about the chosen research theme/question. The qualitative analysis is performed on the included reviews, focussing on how AAC for people with aphasia is discussed, framed and presented in published papers, and if and how AAC is defined.
In the quantitative search, two strategically chosen journals (AAC (digitally available for 1985-2019) and Aphasiology (digitally available for 1987-2019)) were searched. This initial search seemed to justify our research question, indicating that the term AAC seems to be used less frequently and in a slightly different way in aphasia research than in research in other fields and/or in research on other populations. Kent-Walsh et al. (2015:11f) reported similar findings.
June to September 2019, ten different databases covering a variety of professional fields were searched, using the search words ((aphasi* OR dysphasi*) AND (AAC OR "augmentative and alternative" OR "alternative and augmentative" OR "augmentative or alternative" OR "alternative or augmentative")), adapted to the search syntax of each base. We searched for these terms in the abstract, title, topic and/or keyword in the different databases, tailored to the inherent possibilities and limitations in each base. We only included papers identified as reviews, by the authors (in title, abstract or keywords), by the journal or in the database, and accepted any type of review. 115 candidate papers were identified. 21 review papers were included for qualitative analysis, the final result being 24 papers, as three additional papers were identified through citation search. All 24 review papers were included for analysis, true to the project’s aim and research question, but they were also appraised for quality, revealing substantial variation. A log shows the exclusion/inclusion process, as well as the search process.
Discussion and Conclusions: Stories told and concepts and terminology employed, show variations and contradictions within research concerning AAC and aphasia, potentially causing a risk of “inter-professional miscommunicaton”, in research or – perhaps more grave – in the clinic.
References
Hunt, H., Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Estcourt, L. & Brunton, G. (2018). An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Systematic Reviews, 7(39), 1-9.
Kent-Walsh, J., Murza, K. A., Malani, M. D. & Binger, C. (2015). Effects of Communication Partner Instruction on the Communication of Individuals using AAC: A Meta-Analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, early online, 1-4.
