Aphasia friendly written health information: Content and design characteristics
Abstract
People with aphasia need communicatively accessible written health information. Healthcare providers require knowledge of how to develop printed education materials (PEMs) in formats that people with aphasia prefer and can read. This study aimed to explore formatting characteristics considered to be barriers and facilitators to reading PEMs. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 40 adults with aphasia who were selected using maximum variation sampling across aphasia severity, reading ability, and time post-stroke. Participants were shown stroke and aphasia PEMs obtained from the recruiting stroke services, asked to rank them from most liked to least liked, and comment on factors that made the PEMs easier and harder to read. The majority of participants ranked the aphasia friendly stroke (56.4%, n = 22) and aphasia (87.2%, n = 34) PEMs as most liked. Forty-five facilitator and 46 barrier codes were identified using qualitative content analysis and grouped into two categories; (1) content characteristics and (2) design characteristics. Findings support many of the recommendations found within the literature for developing best practice PEMs and accessible information for other patient groups. Routine consideration of the facilitators and barriers identified will contribute to making written information more accessible to people with aphasia.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The literature recommends using bullet points, bolded keywords, headings, and signposting for developing visualizations for people with communication difficulties.
“We also prioritized using bullet points, bolded keywords, headings, and signposting, as recommended in the literature [3, 7, 56] for developing visualizations for people with communication difficulties in our designs.”
From A Data Visualization Tool for Patients and Healthcare Providers to Communicate during Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation (2024) · cites this paper as [56]
Cites
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 · Cited by 20,772 · see citing works
Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Loscalzo, M. J. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004 · Cited by 1,624 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Codesign for People with Aphasia through Tangible Design Languages
Wilson, S., Roper, A., Marshall, J., Galliers, J., Devane, N., Booth, T., & Woolf, C. (2015) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.997744 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Woolf, C., Caute, A., Haigh, Z., Galliers, J., Wilson, S., Kessie, A., Hirani, S., Hegarty, B., & Marshall, J. (2016) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/0269215515582074 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Mobile computing technology and aphasia: an integrated review of accessibility and potential uses
Brandenburg, C., Worrall, L., Rodriguez, A. D., & Copland, D. (2013) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2013.772293 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Self-citationDelivering word retrieval therapies for people with aphasia in a virtual communication environment
Marshall, J., Devane, N., Edmonds, L., Talbot, R., Wilson, S., Woolf, C., & Zwart, N. (2018) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2018.1488237 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Using technology to overcome the language barrier: the Cognitive Assessment for Aphasia App
Wall, K. J., Cumming, T. B., Koenig, S. T., Pelecanos, A. M., & Copland, D. A. (2018) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1294210 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Ramesh, S. H., Ouskine, A., Khorasani, E., Ebrahimipour, M., Finestone, H., Chan, A. D. C., & Rajabiyazdi, F. (2024) · Graphics Interface · doi:10.1145/3670947.3670978 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Brown, E. V. D., Wallace, S. E., & Lee, J. B. (2025) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2024.2415942 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rose, T. A., Worrall, L. E., Hickson, L. M., & Hoffmann, T. C.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Rose, Tanya A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-06-17
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 335-347
- ISSN
- 1441-7049 (ISSN-L)
- 1754-9507
- 1754-9515
- OpenAlex
- W2071218645
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 11.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
- Keywords
- aphasia, written health information, stroke, accessibility, information design, patient education, stroke rehabilitation, aphasia severity, reading skills
- MeSH terms
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aphasia, Communication, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Pamphlets, Patient Education as Topic, Queensland, Reading, Patient Satisfaction, Stroke, Access to Information, Comprehension, Qualitative Research, Consumer Health Information
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