Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Current knowledge mobilisation methods for the two-way sharing of different forms of knowledge between researchers and knowledge users rely on language levels that are unsuitable for people living with aphasia. Consequently, research findings on aphasia and its rehabilitation often remain inaccessible to those most affected and also, the perspectives and needs of these individuals are under-represented in research, raising ethical, clinical and scientific concerns. In 2021, with an aphasia community organisation (AQPA), we co-designed an award-winning initiative—the “Crossword Conference” on Aphasia for two-way knowledge mobilisation.Objectives To retrospectively describe the development, structure and implementation of this initiative to situate it within frameworks for knowledge mobilisation.Method We applied reflective practice by analysing design notes, program documents and team recollections.Results Four events, each featuring two accessibility-guided researcher presentations were co-organised at the AQPA’s premises over 2022. Presentations were pre-recorded as videos, subtitled and released early to enable attendee preparation. Participants attended either in-person or online. They included people living with aphasia, loved ones, rehabilitation professionals and community stakeholders. Of a total of 250 registrations, 89 were people living with aphasia, who contributed significantly to structured discussions and networking after the presentations. Feedback from both researchers and community members was very positive.Conclusions This approach demonstrates the feasibility and relevance of an accessible, interactive knowledge mobilisation approach for aphasia, aligning closely with the PAOLI (People with Aphasia and Other Layperson Involvement) framework. Future prospective evaluations should examine the impact of the “Crossword Conference” approach and adaptation for other communication disorders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anglade et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: