Cited by 58Technology Use by Older AdultsStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

The impact of aphasia on Internet and technology use

Open access
Menger, Fiona, Morris, Julie, Salis, Christos·2020·Disability and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared Internet use post-stroke in people with aphasia (n = 25) and without aphasia (n = 17). The purpose was to understand how people with aphasia were using the Internet and to investigate the impact of aphasia on their use.Materials and methods: A face-to-face supported questionnaire explored the use of technologies, types of Internet use, traditional and Internet communication, the perception of abilities, and possible barriers to acquiring or improving Internet skills. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data.Results: Internet use ranged from fully independent to by proxy across both groups. Most participants perceived their aphasia as a barrier, but for the majority, it was not the sole reason for failing to acquire or improve skills. Aphasia was related to difficulties with technology-based written communication. Educational attainment was related to participant’s feelings about their own skills. Whilst aphasia was important, analysis revealed that age was a stronger predictor of Internet use per se.Conclusions: It is clear that aphasia often negatively affects Internet use and proficiency. However, this research clearly demonstrates that it is important to consider the influence of factors such as age, proxy use, education, and previous technology use and experience.Implications for rehabilitationPost-stroke aphasia contributes negatively to Internet use, particularly in the use of online communication tools such as email and messaging services.Sub-groups of people with aphasia are likely to be more vulnerable to exclusion from the benefits of the Internet; specifically, older people and those with lower levels of educational attainment.It is common for both older adults with and without aphasia to use the Internet via a proxy. Independent use may not always be the desired goal within rehabilitation.People with aphasia may perceive their age and disability as barriers to using the Internet and may lack confidence in their own ability or potential.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09638288.2019.1580320

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 48 · Cited by 58

Authors
Menger, F., Morris, J., & Salis, C.
Affiliations
  • Queen Margaret University (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Menger, Fiona
Venue
Disability and Rehabilitation
Published
2019-04-13
Volume
42
Issue
21
Pages
2986-2996
ISSN
  • 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5165
OpenAlex
W2940220320
Cited by
58
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4
FWCI
7.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Disability and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Margaret University Publications Repository (Queen Margaret University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
aphasia, stroke, internet use, technology use, online communication, email, messaging systems, technology access barriers, educational attainment, age, self-perceived ability, older adults, digital exclusion
MeSH terms
Aged, Aphasia, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Technology, Internet, Stroke

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