Barriers and facilitators to children's use of speech‐generating devices: a descriptive qualitative study of mothers' perspectives

Crisp, Cheryl; Draucker, Claire Burke; Ellett, Marsha L.

doi:10.1111/jspn.12074

Cited by 22 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies conducted after this systematic review have suggested a variety of additional environmental factors which may influence family experiences with high-tech AAC systems. Crisp, Draucker, and Ellett (2014) investigated barriers and facilitators to the use of speech generating devices by children aged 5 to 23 years. Factors of influence within the theme of products and technology that had not already been discussed by Baxter et al (2012) included the device start-up time, colour, number of USB ports, and the presence of additional functions such as the internet (Crisp et al, 2014).…”

Section: Stakeholder Experiences With Aacmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Crisp, Draucker, and Ellett (2014) investigated barriers and facilitators to the use of speech generating devices by children aged 5 to 23 years. Factors of influence within the theme of products and technology that had not already been discussed by Baxter et al (2012) included the device start-up time, colour, number of USB ports, and the presence of additional functions such as the internet (Crisp et al, 2014). Parents appreciated device trials; however, most families did not receive financial support for the purchase of the device.…”

Section: Stakeholder Experiences With Aacmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regards to attitudes and supports, Crisp et al (2014) discussed the influence of the perceptions of less-immediate family members, such as a lack of understanding by grandparents. Furthermore, negative reactions and ignorance from members of society more widely presented a barrier to AAC use.…”

Section: Stakeholder Experiences With Aacmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, participants described strangers who assumed that the device was for games rather than communication. Conversely, device use was facilitated when members of society acknowledged the child's communication attempts with the device (Crisp et al, 2014). While not within the research scope of Baxter et al (2012) or Crisp et al (2014), it is anticipated that there are additional factors that may also influence the degree of support a parent is able to provide to their child around the use of their AAC system.…”

Section: Stakeholder Experiences With Aacmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversely, device use was facilitated when members of society acknowledged the child's communication attempts with the device (Crisp et al, 2014). While not within the research scope of Baxter et al (2012) or Crisp et al (2014), it is anticipated that there are additional factors that may also influence the degree of support a parent is able to provide to their child around the use of their AAC system. For example, family demographics such as location (urban versus rural), socio-economic status, employment, housing, marital status, parent education, maternal age and family structure may be of influence (Curran, Flynn, Antonijevic-Elliott, & Lyons, 2015;Krstić, Batić, Mihić, & Milankov, 2016;Rentinck, Ketelaar, Jongmans, & Gorter, 2007;Snell-Johns, Mendez, & Smith, 2004).…”

Section: Stakeholder Experiences With Aacmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Understanding the rejection and abandonment of augmentative and alternative communication systems by parents of children with complex communication needs

Moorcroft¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with a severe communication disability who are unable to use speech for everyday communication are said to have complex communication needs. This disability may be due to physical, psychological, and/or cognitive impairments; and commonly results in a variety of activity limitations and participation restrictions. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems are often introduced to these children by speech-language pathologists (SLPs). When embraced by the child's parents and modelled in a variety of environments, AAC can result in significant benefits for the child's communication and quality of life. Many parents however reject the idea of AAC from the outset or attempt and later abandon use of the system, thus impacting their child's communication development and success. Despite the implications of AAC rejection and abandonment, this phenomenon has seldom been explored in the literature. Therefore, the series of studies described in this thesis sought to understand why parents of children with complex communication needs may reject or abandon the AAC system introduced to their child. This objective was achieved via a systematic review, three qualitative descriptive studies, and a correlational quantitative investigation. The systematic review aimed to synthesise the barriers and facilitators to the provision and use of low-tech and unaided AAC systems. Relevant literature was identified via a systematic search strategy and qualitative framework analysis was then completed with reference to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Most barriers and facilitators were coded as contextual factors (i.e., environmental and personal factors) within the ICF. Of most prominence were environmental factors including the attitudes and supports of professionals, family members, and society at large. For example, both parents and SLPs held misconceptions about AAC and lacked time to support the implementation of an AAC system. Additional environmental factors related to the AAC I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

show abstract

Section: Stakeholder Experiences With Aacmentioning

confidence: 99%