Asking well-built questions for evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication.

UNLABELLED Evidence-based practice (EBP) is increasingly being advocated as the preferred approach to practice in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The EBP process involves multiple steps. The asking of a well-built question is the first step in the quest for answers. At the same time it is also often the first stumbling block for practitioners. To facilitate the asking of well-built questions it may be helpful to follow a template. The most frequently used template is PICO, which stands for patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome [Richardson, W., Wilson, M., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123, A12-A13]. In this article, we examine the suitability of the PICO template for AAC in terms of the representativeness of the components, and the appropriateness of its subcomponents, and their terminology. Based on this analysis, we propose the PESICO template, which stands for person, environments, stakeholders, intervention, comparison, and outcome. This template is then illustrated with examples representing a range of decision-making areas in AAC. Finally, directions for future research are provided. LEARNING OUTCOMES The reader will be able to: (1) appreciate the importance of asking well-built questions, (2) name the shortcomings of the PICO template, and (3) describe the components of the proposed PESICO template for asking well-built questions.

[1]  Sharon Glennen,et al.  The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication , 1997 .

[2]  G. Bergus,et al.  Does the structure of clinical questions affect the outcome of curbside consultations with specialty colleagues? , 2000, Archives of family medicine.

[3]  Ralf W. Schlosser,et al.  Evidence-Based Practice in Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 2004 .

[4]  D. Beukelman,et al.  Augmentative & Alternative Communication: Supporting Children & Adults With Complex Communication Needs , 2006 .

[5]  Ralf W Schlosser,et al.  The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: a research review. , 2006, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[6]  Sheena Reilly,et al.  Evidence-based practice in speech pathology , 2004 .

[7]  Teaching Evidence‐based Practice in Academic and Clinical Settings , 2002 .

[8]  A. Moseley,et al.  Evidence-based practice -- imperfect but necessary , 2001 .

[9]  Ralf W. Schlosser,et al.  Comparative efficacy of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication , 1999 .

[10]  E C Armstrong,et al.  The well-built clinical question: the key to finding the best evidence efficiently. , 1999, WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin.

[11]  J Light,et al.  Instructing facilitators to support the communication of people who use augmentative communication systems. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  Ralf W. Schlosser,et al.  Searching for evidence in augmentative and alternative communication: Navigating a scattered literature , 2005 .

[13]  V. Moyer.  Evidence based pediatrics and child health , 2000 .

[14]  R. Schlosser.  Social validation of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication , 1999 .

[15]  G. Onady,et al.  Evidence-based medicine: asking the answerable question (question templates as tools). , 2003, Pediatrics in review.

[16]  Janice Light,et al.  Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems , 1989 .

[17]  Elmer V. Villanueva,et al.  Improving question formulation for use in evidence appraisal in a tertiary care setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN66375463] , 2001, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[18]  Jennifer Windsor,et al.  A proposed augmentative and alternative communication model , 1990 .

[19]  Johan P Mackenbach,et al.  Income inequality and population health , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  M. Mäkelä,et al.  Sackettin pieni punainen. Kirja-arvostelu teoksesta Sackett, DL. ; Richardson WS. ; Rosenberg, W. ; Haynes RB.: Evidence-based Medicine: How to practice and Teach EBM. , 1998 .

[21]  B. Melnyk,et al.  Key steps in implementing evidence-based practice: asking compelling, searchable questions and searching for the best evidence. , 2002, Pediatric nursing.

[22]  W. Richardson,et al.  The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. , 1995, ACP journal club.

[23]  Ralf W. Schlosser,et al.  The Efficacy of Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Toward Evidence-Based Practice , 2003 .

[24]  Jeff Sigafoos,et al.  Augmentative and alternative communication interventions for persons with developmental disabilities: narrative review of comparative single-subject experimental studies. , 2006, Research in developmental disabilities.

[25]  M. Granlund,et al.  Participation and general competence : do type and degree of disability really matter? , 2005 .

[26]  T. Meline,et al.  Evidence-Based Practice in Schools: Evaluating Research and Reducing Barriers. , 2003, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[27]  D. Sackett.  Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM , 2018 .

[28]  M. Ebell,et al.  Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care , 1999, BMJ.

[29]  M. Ebell,et al.  Obstacles to answering doctors' questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.