Cited by 44Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityVoice and Speech DisordersPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Communication aid requirements of intensive care unit patients with transient speech loss

Mobasheri, Mohammad H., King, Dominic, Judge, Simon, Arshad, Faizan, Larsen, Marius, Safarfashandi, Zahra, Shah, Hemal, Trepekli, Anna +4 more·2016·Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Abstract

Alert and transiently nonvocal intensive care unit (ICU) patients are dependent on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Unfortunately, the literature demonstrates that existent AAC devices have not been widely adopted, and unaided methods are often the primary modalities used despite being insufficient, and frustrating. We present the results of a qualitative semi-structured interview study with 8 ex-ICU patients, 4 ICU patient relatives, and 6 ICU staff, exploring their AAC needs and requirements. Participants identified important AAC hardware, software, and content requirements. Salient factors impacting on AAC adoption in the ICU setting were also highlighted and included the need for staff training and bedside patient assessment. Based on the study results, we propose a series of recommendations regarding the design and implementation of future AAC tools specifically targeted at this group.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07434618.2016.1235610

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For ICU staff, large tablets were too bulky to carry around due to the small pockets of their scrubs; they preferred small tablets that are portable or larger mobile phones for remote patient monitoring in the ICU.

    “However, for ICU staff, large tablets were too bulky to carry around due to the small pockets of their scrubs; they instead preferred small tablets that are portable [42] or larger mobile phones for remote patient monitoring in the ICU.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 44

Authors
Mobasheri, M. H., King, D., Judge, S., Arshad, F., Larsen, M., Safarfashandi, Z., Shah, H., Trepekli, A., Trikha, S., Xylas, D., Brett, S. J., & Darzi, A.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Mobasheri, Mohammad H.
Venue
Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Published
2016-10
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
261-271
ISSN
  • 0743-4618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-3848
OpenAlex
W2549672415
Cited by
44
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
14.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Augmentative and Alternative Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
intensive care unit patients, employee training, patient and family perspectives
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Allied Health Personnel, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Communication Aids for Disabled, Family, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Medical Staff, Hospital, Middle Aged, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Speech Disorders, Speech Therapy, Tracheostomy, Needs Assessment, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review