Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) systems are used by people with motor disabilities, such as those with cerebral palsy (CP). The assessment of physical functional skills is crucial for appropriately choosing the computer access tool.
OBJECTIVE:
This study aimed to do a systematic literature review addressing the importance of the analysis of physical functional performance for the construction of specific tools to support communication.
METHODS:
The review followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched articles from 2009 to 2021 using three databases (PubMed, Lilacs in Portuguese, and SciELO). Three reviewers extracted the data. Registration was made to PROSPERO. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
RESULTS:
We found 132 articles in the databases. First, we excluded 31 articles because they did not provide evidence for the use of alternative communication in people with CP and did not use high technology resources. We also excluded 57 duplicated articles. At the end of this first step, 44 articles were left, 38 of them were excluded because they are not clinical trials. We selected 6 articles for the final analysis.
CONCLUSIONS:
The systematic review had a positive impact on the precise dissemination of knowledge ensuring comparisons of interventions and articles such as assistive technology programs.
O’NeillTLightJPopeL. Effects of interventions that include aided augmentative and alternative communication input on the communication of individuals with complex communication needs: A meta-analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2018; 61: 1743-1765. Available from: doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0132.
2.
BuchholzMHolmgrenKFermU. Remote communication for people with disabilities: support persons views on benefits, challenges, and suggestions for technology development. Technol Disabil.2020; 32(2): 69-80. doi: 10.3233/TAD-190254.
3.
Da SilvaRRIwabe-MarcheseC. Uso da realidade virtual na reabilitação motora de uma criança com Paralisia Cerebral Atáxica: Estudo de caso. Fisioterapia e Pesquisa.2015; 22(1): 97-102.
4.
CarloniJMagniRVeglioERyanSEGherardiniADesideriL. Translation and preliminary validation of the italian version of the family impact of assistive technology scale for augmentative and alternative communication (FIATS-AAC.it). Technol Disabil.2020; 32(2): 129-135, 2020. doi: 10.3233/TAD-200261.
5.
MoreiraWCassimiroM. Effects of botulinum toxin in children with cerebral palsy. Rev Saúde e Desenv.2018; 12(10): 253-259.
6.
GarciaDPSan MartínPP. Caracterización sociodemográfica y clínica de la población atendida en el Instituto Teletón de Santiago. Rev Chil Pediatr.2016; 86(3): 161-7. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.rchipe.2015.06.002.
7.
BinhaAMPMacielSCBezerraCCA. Epidemiological profile of patients with cerebral palsy treated in the AACD-SP. São Paulo. Acta Fisiatr.2018; 25(1): 1-6. doi: 10.11606/issn.2317-0190.v25i1a158818.
8.
ZuurmondMO’BanionDGladstoneMCarsamarSKeracMBaltussenM, et al. Evaluating the impact of a community-based parent training programme for children with cerebral palsy in Ghana. PLoS ONE.2018; 13(9). Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202096.
9.
Van NaardenBKDoernbergNSchieveL, et al. Birth prevalence of cerebral palsy: A population-based study. Pediatrics.2016; 137(1). Available from: doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-2872.
10.
LangloisCTuckerBVSawatzkyAReedABoliekCA. Effects of an intensive voice treatment on articulatory function and speech intelligibility in children with motor speech disorders: A phase one study. J Commun Disord. 2020; 86. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2020.106003.
11.
MertlJFričV. Key-to-Voice App: A Simple Speech-generating Device Suitable (not Only) for a Hospital EnvironmentTechnol. Disabil.2019; 31(4): 169-181. doi: 10.3233/TAD-180199.
12.
CaronJ. Engagement in social media environments for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. NeuroRehabilitation.2016; 39(14): 499-506. doi: 10.3233/NRE-161381.
13.
GlackenMHealyDGilraneUGowanSH-MDolanSWalsh-GallagherDJenningsC. Key word signing: Parents’ experiences of an unaided form of augmentative and alternative communication (Lámh). J Intellect Disabil.2019; 23(3): 327-343. Available from: doi: 10.1177/1744629518790825.
14.
StansSEADalemansRJPWitteLPBeurskensAJHM. Using talking mats to support conversations with communication vulnerable people: A scoping review. Technol Disabil.2019; 30(4): 153-176. doi: 10.3233/TAD-180219.
15.
ChanRY-YSato-ShimokawaraEBaiXYukiharuMKuoSChungA. A Context-Aware Augmentative and Alternative Communication System for School Children With Intellectual Disabilities. IEEE Syst J. 2019; 208-219. doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2019.2911671.
16.
AllenAASchlosserRWBrockKLShaneHC. The effectiveness of aided augmented input techniques for persons with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Augment Altern Commun.2003; 33(3): 149-159. Available from: doi: 10.1080/07434618.2017.1338752.
17.
BrownLE. Barriers to change for augmentative and alternative communication. Murray State Theses and Dissertations. 2019; 134p. Available from: https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/etd/134.
18.
OMS. CIF: Classificação Internacional de Funcionalidade, Incapacidade e Saúde, 2003. São Paulo: EDUSP.
19.
HideckerMJPanethNRosenbaumPLKentRDLillieJEulenbergJB, et al. Developing and validating the communication function classification system for individuals with cerebral palsy. Dev. Med. Child. Neurol.2011; 53(8): 704-10.
20.
QueirozÍPMenezesECSantosIMBGoesUMGivigiRCN. Validation of the neurofunctional evaluation protocol for Alternative and Augmentative Communication. Rev. CEFAC.2018; 20(3): 291-303. Available from: doi: 10.1590/1982-0216201820318017.
21.
GargSHamarnehGJongmanASerenoJAWangY. Computer-vision analysis reveals facial movements made during Mandarin tone production align with pitch trajectories. Speech Commun.2019; 113: 47-62. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2019.08.003. Acess: 05-2020.
22.
Arias-VergaraTVásquez-CorreaJCOrozco-ArroyaveJRNöthE. Speaker models for monitoring Parkinson’s disease progression considering different communication channels and acoustic conditions. Speech Commun.2018; 101: 11-25. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2018.05.007. Acess: 06-2020.
23.
PradoJELGagoARA. Inclusion through Technology and Education: A Commitment to the Improvement of Museographic Cultural Spaces. Technol Disabil.2020; 32(3): 137-148. doi: 10.3233/TAD-190246.
24.
SmithEHokstadSNæssKA. Children with Down syndrome can benefit from language interventions; Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Commun Disord. 2020; 85. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2020.1059.
25.
MoherD. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med.2009; 151(4): 264. PMID: 1962251.
26.
TayELLeeSWHYongGHWongCP. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of custom game based virtual rehabilitation in improving physical functioning of patients with acquired brain injury. Technol Disabil.2018; 30(1-2): 1-23. doi: 10.3233/TAD-170184.
27.
Branson, Diane, and Maryann Demchak. The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: A research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2009; 25(4): 274-286. doi: 10.3109/07434610903384529.
28.
EedenSVStringerH. Linguistic and auditory processing skills in non-syndromic children with cleft palate: A scoping review. J Commun Disord. 2020; 87. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2020.106029.
29.
KoesterHHArthanatS. The design, conduct, and reporting of research on text entry with alternative access interfaces: Recommendations from a systematic review. Technol Disabil.2018; 30(3): 83-95. doi: 10.3233/TAD-180204.
30.
Cochrane Reviews (Nova Jersey) (Org.). About Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Protocols. 2013. Available from: Andlt;http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/AboutCochraneSystematicReviews.htmlAndgt.
31.
SantosFAOJúniorCAEMMacedoHTMChellaMTGivigiRCNBarbosaL. CA2JU: an Assistive Tool for Children with Cerebral PalsyStud Health Technol Inform. 2015; 216(2): 589-593.
32.
BoscoAPicucciLCaffòAOStasollaF. Assistive technology for promoting choice behaviors in three children with cerebral palsy and severe communication impairments. Res Dev Disabil.2013; 34(9): 2694-2700. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.029.
33.
LesperanceABlainSChauT. An integrated approach to detecting communicative intent amid hyperkinetic movements in children. Augment Altern Commun.2011; 27(2): 150-162. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2011.614640.
34.
ShihC-HChiuSChuCShihC-TLiaoCLinC. Assisting people with multiple disabilities improve their computer-pointing efficiency with hand swing through a standard mouse. Res Dev Disabil.2010; 31(2): 517-524. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.12.005.
35.
ShihC-H. Assisting people with multiple disabilities to improve computer typing efficiency through a mouse wheel and on-screen keyboard software. Res Dev Disabil. 2014; 35(9): 2129-2136. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.04.030.
36.
ShihC-H. Assisting people with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior to improve computer Drag-and-Drop efficiency through a mouse wheel. Res Dev Disabil. Speech.2011; 32(6): 2867-2874. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.018.
37.
PintoFCAPerissinotoJSchieferAM. A Anamnese Fonoaudiológica segundo os preceitos da Classificação Internacional de Funcionalidade Incapacidade e Saúde (CIF). Distúrb Comum.2018; 30(2): 252-265. doi: 10.23925/2176-2724.2018v30i2p-252-265.
38.
KoppenhaverDWilliamsA. A conceptual review of writing research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun.2010; 26(3): 158-176. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2010.505608.
