Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: Several studies have examined the communicative participation of people with communication disorders (PWCD). Hindering and facilitating factors were analyzed in different population groups considering various private and public communication contexts. However, knowledge about (a) the experiences of persons with different communication disorders, (b) communication with public authorities, and (c) the perspective of communication partners in this area remains limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the communicative participation of PWCD with public authorities. We analyzed communicative experiences (hindering and facilitating factors) and suggestions for improving communicative access described by persons with aphasia (PWA) and persons who stutter (PWS) as well as by employees of public authorities (EPA).
Methods: In semi-structured interviews, PWA (n = 8), PWS (n = 9), and EPA (n = 11) reported specific communicative encounters with public authorities. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, focusing on hindering/facilitating experiences and suggestions for improvement.
Results: The personal experiences of the participants during authority encounters were represented by the interwoven themes of familiarity and awareness, attitudes and behavior, and support and autonomy. The perspectives of the three groups overlap in several areas; however, the results also indicate specific differences between PWA and PWS as well as between PWCD and EPA.
Conclusion: The results indicate a need to improve awareness/knowledge about communication disorders and communicative behavior in EPA. Moreover, PWCD should actively engage in encounters with authorities. In both groups, awareness must be raised about how each communication partner can contribute to successful communication, and avenues to achieve this goal must be demonstrated.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2023.106314 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!