↓ Skip to main content

Aphasia friendly written health information: Content and design characteristics

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of 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 (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
International Journal of 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Switzerland 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 80 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 31%
Student > Master 20 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 16%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Psychology 10 12%
Linguistics 9 11%
Other 18 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,671,792
of 12,458,585 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
#160
of 456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,990
of 89,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,458,585 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 456 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 89,565 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.