The decision-making process in recommending electronic communication aids for children and young people who are non-speaking: the I-ASC mixed-methods study

Murray, Janice; Lynch, Yvonne; Goldbart, Juliet; Moulam, Liz; Judge, Simon; Webb, Edward; Jayes, Mark; Meredith, Stuart; Whittle, Helen; Randall, Nicola; Meads, David; Hess, Stephane

doi:10.3310/hsdr08450

Graphic version of this page | Change how these pages look

Journals Library

NHS NIHR - National Institute for Health and Care Research

Journals

Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Home >> Journals >> Health and Social Care Delivery Research >> Page Not Found

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Home >> Journals >> Health and Social Care Delivery Research >> Volume {{metadata.Volume}} >> Issue {{metadata .Issue }}
Extended Research Article
i

Toolkit

View Award

This study has gone some way to defining factors and processes, and barriers to and facilitators of research-informed decision-making in communication aid recommendations and identified some uncertainties in practice.

Janice Murray
[Image - ORCID logo], Yvonne Lynch
[Image - ORCID logo], Juliet Goldbart
[Image - ORCID logo], Liz Moulam
[Image - ORCID logo], Simon Judge
[Image - ORCID logo], Edward Webb
[Image - ORCID logo], Mark Jayes, Stuart Meredith, Helen Whittle
[Image - ORCID logo], Nicola Randall
[Image - ORCID logo], David Meads
[Image - ORCID logo] & Stephane Hess
[Image - ORCID logo].

Detailed Author information
Detailed Author information

Janice Murray ^1,^*, Yvonne Lynch ¹, Juliet Goldbart ¹, Liz Moulam ¹, Simon Judge ², Edward Webb ³, Mark Jayes ¹, Stuart Meredith ¹, Helen Whittle ¹, Nicola Randall ², David Meads ³, Stephane Hess ⁴

¹ Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
² Barnsley Assistive Technology Service, Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Barnsley, UK
³ Leeds Institute of Health Sciences and Choice Modelling Centre, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
⁴ Choice Modelling Centre and Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
^* Corresponding author Email: J.murray@mmu.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

[Image - Crossmark status check]

Report Content

Full Report
Abstract
Plain English Summary
Plain Language Summary
Scientific Summary

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors. Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Enter response message*
Name (title, first name, last name)*
Occupation / Job title*
Affiliation / Employer*
Email*
Other authors
For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas
Statement of competing interestsWe believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.
If yes, please provide details below
Enter response title*
Enter CAPTCHA What is nine minus one?*

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions