A12 |
El-Soussi (2015)/Egypt |
• Quasi-experimental, post-test only • Patients, n=60 (intubated) • 1 pulmonary ICU |
Communication picture board, paper and pen |
Standard method |
• One measurement: post-intervention • Patients' satisfaction (patient Satisfaction questionnaire) • Patients' communication methods, barriers, distress, and evaluation (patient communication tool) |
• Significantly higher satisfaction with communication and lower distress level in the intervention group than in the control group. • More than half of intervention group perceived the AAC method as extremely helpful. |
∗∗∗ |
A13 |
Happ (2015)/U.S.A. |
• Prospective, randomized stepped-wedge pragmatic trial, pre- and post-test • Patients, n=1440 (MV) • Nurses, n=320 • 6 ICUs of 2 hospitals |
Intervention package (online training for nurses, provision of communication supplies, SLP counseling, nurse champions) |
Standard method |
• Three measurements: (1) T0: pre-training, (2) T1: post-training (3) T3: 3 months after training • Nurses' training completion rate at T1 • Nurses' communication knowledge (10-item test) at T0, T1 • Nurses' comfort and satisfaction with communication (nurse communication survey) at T0, T4 • Clinical outcomes (medical records) |
• Significant increase in nurses' communication knowledge, satisfaction and comfort after intervention. • No significant change in clinical outcomes of patient. |
∗∗∗∗∗ |
A14 |
Koszalinski (2015)/U.S.A. |
• Quasi-experimental, a single group, post-test only • Patients, n=20 (MV) • ICUs of 3 large hospitals |
Tablet-based application |
N/A |
• One measurement: post-intervention • Opinions, preferences, suggestions to application (open-ended questions) • Duration of time that participants spend using the app |
• Intervention group mainly perceived that the intervention is helpful, innovative, less frustrating, and empowers them to make decisions. • Participants used speak for myself from 4 to 16 hours/day. |
∗ |
A15 |
Berning (2016)/U.S.A. |
• Quasi-experimental, a single group, pre- and post-test • Patients, n=50 (MV) • medical or surgical ICUs |
Communication picture board designed for spirituality assessment, spiritual care by chaplain |
N/A |
• Two measurements: (1) T0: pre-intervention, (2) T1: post-intervention • Proportion of patients who can identify spiritual affiliation with picture board at T1 • Anxiety, stress, pain (visual analog scale) at T0, T1 • Time needed to complete intervention at T1 • Interview of how cards helped patients at T1 |
• All patients identified spiritual affiliation. • Significant decrease in anxiety and stress, but no change in pain. • It took a median of 8.5 minutes for patients to complete the card, and a median of 18 minutes to complete the whole intervention. • Majority of patients reported being more competent, at peace, and closer to holiness after the intervention. |
∗∗∗∗∗ |
A16 |
Freeman-Sandersen (2016b)/Australia |
• RCT • Patient, n=30 (tracheostomized) • 1 ICU |
Early cuff deflation, in-line speaking valve during pressure support ventilation |
Cuff deflation and speaking valve during self-vent ilation |
• Two measurements: (1) T0: pre-intervention, (2) T1: post-intervention • Time from tracheostomy to phonation at T0, T1 • Clinical outcomes (medical records) • Communication-related QOL (VASES), general QOL (EQ-5D) at T0, T1 |
• Time from tracheostomy to phonation was shorter by a mean of 11 days in the intervention group compared to the control group. • No significant change in clinical outcomes of patient. • No significant change in quality of life. |
∗∗∗∗∗ |
A17 |
Koszalinski (2016)/U.S.A. |
• Qualitative analysis of mixed-methods • Quasi-experimental, a single group, pre- and post-test • Patients, n=20 (MV) • ICUs of 3 large hospitals |
Tablet-based application |
N/A |
• Two measurements: (1) T0: pre-intervention, (2) T1: post-intervention • Communication needs and experience of voiceless patients before and after intervention (interview, observation) at T0, T1 |
• Patients reported feelings of frustration, powerlessness, suffering due to misunderstandings, and unaddressed pain before intervention. • After intervention, patients reported better experience and higher decision-making capacity. |
∗∗∗∗∗ |
A18 |
Rodriguez (2016)/U.S.A. |
• Quasi-experimental, 4 cohort repeated measures design • Patient, n=115 (tracheostomized, intubated, or post head and neck surgery status) • Adult ICUs in 2 tertiary hospitals |
Tablet-based computer software |
Call light, pen and paper |
• Three measurements: (1) T0: day 2, (2) T1: day 4 (3) T2: day 6 • Communication ease (perception of communication difficulty questionnaire) • Frustration with communication (tool adapted from Patak's frustration survey) • Satisfaction with communication method (tool adapted from the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology) |
• Consistent increase in perception of communication ease in the intervention group. • Significantly higher satisfaction level and lower frustration level regarding communication in the intervention group than the control group. |
∗∗∗∗ |
A19 |
Duffy (2018)/U.S.A |
• Pilot prospective study • Quasi-experimental, a single group, post-test only • Patients, n=12 (intubated or tracheostomized) • Trauma/surgical ICU |
Eye tracking device and communication board |
N/A |
• One measurement: post-intervention • Accuracy of communication (examiner repeating patients' response and verifying correctness) •Additional communication needs (open-ended question) •Patient and observer's preference between the 2 AAC devices and head nodding or writing |
• No significant difference in the accuracy of communication between the 2 AAC devices. • 83% of patients mentioned needing spiritual, emotional, physical/environmental, and physiological communication. • 83% of patients preferred AAC devices over conventional methods. • Observers evaluated head nodding as the easiest method and AAC devices appropriate for complex communication. |
∗∗∗∗ |
A20 |
Holm (2018)/Denmark |
• Quasi-experimentala single group, post-test only • Patients, n=7 (MV) • Nurses, n=25 • 5 ICUs |
Tablet software and book made with identical structure and contents |
N/A |
• One measurement: post-intervention • How and whether the intervention supported communication (observation, semi-structured interview) |
• Patients' physical, cognitive, and psychological difficulties were barriers to using AAC tools. • AAC tools were reported to be supplementary, not substitutive. • Electronic tablet was reported to be technologically advanced, but patients found the book more useful situationally. |
∗∗∗∗∗ |
A21 |
Hosseini (2018)/Iran |
• Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test • Patients, n=30 (MV) • 2 ICUs |
Communication board |
Standard method |
• Two measurements: (1) T0: pre-intervention, (2) T1: post-intervention • Communication ease (ECS) • Anxiety (HADS) |
• Significant increase in communication ease in the intervention group. • Significant decrease in anxiety in the intervention group. |
∗∗∗∗ |
A22 |
Rose (2018)/Canada |
• Quasi-experimental, a single group, pre- and post-test • Patient, n=24 (tracheostomized, unable to deflate cuffs) • Family members, n=7, • Clinicians, n=9 • 3 ICUs |
Training for electrolarynx and SLP assisting with trouble shooting |
N/A |
• Three measurements: (1) T0: pre-intervention, (2) T1: post-intervention, (3) T2: before discharge • Speech intelligibility (AIDS) • Comprehensibility (9-point Likert scale) • Effectiveness of electrolarynx (EES) assessed by 2 raters at T1 • Anxiety (faces anxiety scale) • Communication ease (ECS) • Satisfaction with electrolarynx (5-point Likert scale) at T0, T1 • Facilitators and barriers of patients, families and clinicians to electrolarynx (semi-structured interview) at T2 |
•Speech using electrolarynx showed 45% correctness in intelligibility and reasonable difficulty. •Electrolarynx was effective in producing recognizable sounds. •Intelligibility and comprehensibility was higher when facing the patient than when facing away. •Significant decrease in anxiety, increase in communication ease, and no significant change in satisfaction. •Reported facilitators were device friendliness, patient independence, and word intelligibility. • Reported barriers were patient weakness, difficulty in positioning the device, and limited sentence. |
∗∗∗ |
A23 |
Koszalinski (2019)/U.S.A. |
• RCT • Patients, n=36 (MV) • 5 ICUs (TSICU, NCCU, PCU, MICU, CVICU) |
Tablet-based application |
Communication board |
• Two measurements: (1) T0: pre-intervention, (2) T1: post-intervention • Anxiety & depression: (HADS) |
• Significant decrease in depression in the intervention group. • Larger decrease in anxiety in the intervention group than the control group. |
∗ |
A24 |
Koszalinski (2020)/U.S.A. |
• Secondary analysis of RCT (A23) • Patients, n=36 (MV) • 5 ICUs |
Tablet-based application |
Communication board |
•Two measurements: (1) T0: pre-intervention, (2) T1: post-intervention •Anxiety & depression (HADS) |
•Significant increase in ability to envision a positive future in the intervention group compared to the control group. |
∗ |
A25 |
Pandian (2020)/U.S.A. |
• RCT • Patient, n=50 (tracheostomized, unable to tolerate OWSV) |
Talking tracheostomy tube and education sessions on how to use the tube |
Standard care |
• Two measurements: (1) T0: Pre-intervention, (2) T1: post-intervention • QOL (QOL-MV, V-RQOL) at T0, T1 • Speech Intelligibility (SIT) • Independence at T1 • Satisfaction at T1 |
• Significant increase of V-RQOL and QOL-MV in intervention group. • 73% of intervention group who answered the post-test reported independent ability, and 41% expressed satisfaction with talking tracheostomy tube. |
∗∗∗∗ |
A26 |
Trotta (2020)/U.S.A. |
• Quasi-experimental, a single group, pre- and post-test • Patients, n=354 (MV) • Nurses, n=385 • 1 MICU, 4 SICUs |
Intervention package (online training for nurses, provision of communication supplies, SLP counseling, nurse champions) |
N/A |
• Five measurements: (1) T0: pre-intervention (2) T1: after 2weeks (3) T2: after 3weeks (4) T3: after 4weeks (5) T4: after 6weeks • Communication ease (ECS) at T0, T2, T4 • Nurses' use of communication methods (EHR audits, bedside observation) at T0, T2, T4 • Nurses' compliance with communication care plans (observation and EHR audits) at T1, T3, T4 |
• Significant increase in communication ease of patients after intervention. • Application of six different communication methods all increased after intervention. • Nurses' compliance with written communication plans incrementally increased after intervention. |
∗∗∗∗ |