Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2026
Access to Communication Assessment and Intervention for Adults With Intellectual Disabilities.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chaney Caitlin, Do Ann Nguyen, Elitawi Amanda, Carrier Brooke, Charters Emma
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Effective communication is essential for health, quality of life and social participation. Adults with communication disabilities-particularly those with intellectual disabilities-often face systemic barriers to accessing appropriate support.
METHOD: A retrospective audit of 497 consultations from 276 adults with intellectual disabilities living in Australian group homes (2017-2022) was conducted at a private speech pathology clinic. The audit examined the proportion of patients recommended for and receiving a full communication assessment.
RESULTS: A mixed method analysis was conducted and identified that of the 234 patients recommended for assessment, only 93 (39.7%) received one. Thematic analysis found that facilitators included dedicated funding, carer advocacy and multiple clinical contacts. Barriers were primarily related to funding limitations, competing clinical priorities and poor service access.
CONCLUSION: There is a clear gap between recommended and delivered communication assessment. Systemic reform is needed to prioritise communication through improved funding pathways, carer training and access to speech pathology services.
METHOD: A retrospective audit of 497 consultations from 276 adults with intellectual disabilities living in Australian group homes (2017-2022) was conducted at a private speech pathology clinic. The audit examined the proportion of patients recommended for and receiving a full communication assessment.
RESULTS: A mixed method analysis was conducted and identified that of the 234 patients recommended for assessment, only 93 (39.7%) received one. Thematic analysis found that facilitators included dedicated funding, carer advocacy and multiple clinical contacts. Barriers were primarily related to funding limitations, competing clinical priorities and poor service access.
CONCLUSION: There is a clear gap between recommended and delivered communication assessment. Systemic reform is needed to prioritise communication through improved funding pathways, carer training and access to speech pathology services.