PhotoTalk is an application for a mobile device that allows people with aphasia to capture and manage digital photographs to support face-to-face communication. Unlike any other augmentative and alternative communication device for people with aphasia, PhotoTalk focuses solely on image capture and organization and is designed to be used independently. Our project used a streamlined process with three phases: (1) a rapid participatory design and development phase with two speech-language pathologists acting as representative users, (2) an informal usability study with five aphasic participants, which caught usability problems and provided preliminary feedback on the usefulness of PhotoTalk, and (3) a one-month field evaluation with two aphasic participants followed by a one-month secondary field evaluation with one aphasic participant, which showed that they all used it regularly and relatively independently, although not always for its intended communicative purpose. Our field evaluations demonstrated PhotoTalk's promise in terms of its usability and usefulness in everyday communication.

Teams engaging in assistive technology research should include expertise in the domain of disability itself, in addition to other areas of expertise that are more typical in human-computer interaction (HCI) research, such as computer science and psychology. However, unexpected problems can arise when HCI researchers do not adequately plan the involvement of domain experts in a research project. Although many research teams have included domain experts when designing assistive technologies, there has been little work published on how to best involve these experts in the research process. This paper is a first step towards filling that void. Based on the authors' own experiences involving domain experts in research, as well as those documented in the literature, five types of domain experts and three broad roles that domain experts can play are identified, and five guidelines for their involvement are presented. This analysis will be useful to anyone in the assistive technology and universal accessibility communities, especially those who are in the early stages of conducting research in this area. It is intended to lay the foundation of best practices for involving domain experts in assistive technology research.

No abstract

No abstract

ImportanceUltrasound renal denervation (uRDN) was shown to lower blood pressure (BP) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (HTN). Establishing the magnitude and consistency of the uRDN effect across the HTN spectrum is clinically important.ObjectiveTo characterize the effectiveness and safety of uRDN vs a sham procedure from individual patient-level pooled data across uRDN trials including either patients with mild to moderate HTN on a background of no medications or with HTN resistant to standardized triple-combination therapy.Data SourcesA Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension (RADIANCE-HTN SOLO and TRIO) and A Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Stage II Hypertension (RADIANCE II) trials.Study SelectionTrials with similar designs, standardized operational implementation (medication standardization and blinding of both patients and physicians to treatment assignment), and follow-up.Data Extraction and SynthesisPooled analysis using individual patient-level data using linear regression models to compare uRDN with sham across the trials.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was baseline-adjusted change in 2-month daytime ambulatory systolic BP (dASBP) between groups.ResultsA total of 506 patients were randomized in the 3 studies (uRDN, 293; sham, 213; mean [SD] age, 54.1 [9.3]; 354 male [70.0%]). After a 1-month medication stabilization period, dASBP was similar between the groups (mean [SD], uRDN, 150.3 [9.2] mm Hg; sham, 150.8 [10.5] mm Hg). At 2 months, dASBP decreased by 8.5 mm Hg to mean (SD) 141.8 (13.8) mm Hg among patients treated with uRDN and by 2.9 mm Hg to 147.9 (14.6) mm Hg among patients treated with a sham procedure (mean difference, −5.9; 95% CI, −8.1 to −3.8 mm Hg; P < .001 in favor of uRDN). BP decreases from baseline with uRDN vs sham were consistent across trials and across BP parameters (office SBP: −10.4 mm Hg vs −3.4 mm Hg; mean difference, −6.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, −9.1 to –3.6 mm Hg; home SBP: −8.4 mm Hg vs −1.4 mm Hg; mean difference, −6.8 mm Hg; 95% CI, −8.7 to −4.9 mm Hg, respectively). The BP reductions with uRDN vs sham were consistent across prespecified subgroups. Independent predictors of a larger BP response to uRDN were higher baseline BP and heart rate and the presence of orthostatic hypertension. No differences in early safety end points were observed between groups.Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this patient-level pooled analysis suggest that BP reductions with uRDN were consistent across HTN severity in sham-controlled trials designed with a 2-month primary end point to standardize medications across randomized groups.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02649426 and NCT03614260