↓ Skip to main content

Aphasia friendly written health information: Content and design characteristics

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Speech Language Pathology, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Aphasia friendly written health information: Content and design characteristics
Published in
Advances in Speech Language Pathology, June 2011
DOI 10.3109/17549507.2011.560396
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanya A. Rose, Linda E. Worrall, Louise M. Hickson, Tammy C. Hoffmann

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Russia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 168 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 21%
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Researcher 12 7%
Librarian 6 3%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 38 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 17%
Linguistics 15 9%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Psychology 13 8%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 44 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2022.
All research outputs
#5,333,475
of 25,707,225 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Speech Language Pathology
#262
of 844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,823
of 126,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Speech Language Pathology
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,707,225 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 126,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.