4.4 Review

Technology and its role in rehabilitation for people with cognitive-communication disability following a traumatic brain injury (TBI)

期刊

BRAIN INJURY
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 1028-1043

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02699052.2017.1292429

关键词

Technology; online; traumatic brain injury; communication disorder; cognitive

资金

  1. Australian Government
  2. Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To review the literature on communication technologies in rehabilitation for people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and: (a) determine its application to cognitive-communicative rehabilitation, and b) develop a model to guide communication technology use with people after TBI. Method: This integrative literature review of communication technology in TBI rehabilitation and cognitive-communication involved searching nine scientific databases and included 95 studies. Results: Three Major types of communication technologies (assistive technology, augmentative and alternative communication technology, and information communication technology) and multiple factors relating to use of technology by or with:people after TBI were categorized according to: (i),individual needs, motivations and goals; (ii) individual impairments, activities, participation and environmental factors; and (iii) technologies. While there is substantial research relating to communication technologies and cognitive rehabilitation after TBI, little relates specifically to cognitive-communication rehabilitation. Conclusions: Further investigation is needed into the experiences and views of people with TBI who use communication technologies, to provide the 'user' perspective and influence user-centred design. Research is necessary to investigate the training interventions that address factors fundamental for success, and any impact on communication. The proposed model provides an evidence-based framework for incorporating technology into speech pathology clinical practice and research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据