ArticlePloS one2019
Detection of vision and /or hearing loss using the interRAI Community Health Assessment aligns well with common behavioral vision/hearing measurements.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for deafblindness. Part I: a systematic review of outcome measures.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Identifying older adults' communication support needs and preferences: a scoping review of measurement instruments.The Gerontologist · 2026Article
- Examining the ability of the interRAI communication collaborative action plan to identify individuals with sensory challenges: A retrospective cohort study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Clinical Characteristics of Adults Living with a Spinal Cord Injury Across the Continuum of Care: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Strategies used during the cognitive evaluation of older adults with dual sensory impairment: a scoping review.Age and ageing · 2024Article
- Health-Related Quality of Life among Older Adults with Dementia Living in Vietnamese Nursing Homes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Continuum of Care for Older Adults With Concurrent Hearing and Vision Impairment: A Systematic Review.Innovation in aging · 2023Review
- Prevalence of sensory impairments in home care and long-term care using interRAI data from across Canada.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Cognitive decline, sensory impairment, and the use of audio-visual aids by long-term care facility residents.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Optimizing Evaluation of Older Adults With Vision and/or Hearing Loss Using the interRAI Community Health Assessment and Deafblind Supplement.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2021Article
- Older adults with dual sensory loss in rehabilitation show high functioning and may fare better than those with single sensory loss.PloS one · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study's main objective was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the interRAI Community Health Assessment (CHA) for detecting the presence of vision loss (VL), hearing loss (HL) or both (Dual Sensory Loss, DSL) when compared against performance-based measures of vision and hearing. The interRAI CHA and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were administered to 200 adults (61+ years of age) who had VL, HL or DSL. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the interRAI CHA for detecting sensory impairments using as the gold standard performance based measurements of hearing (pure-tone audiogram) and vision (distance acuity) as determined from the rehabilitation centre record. Results were divided according to participants' cognitive status, as measured by the MoCA and the Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS, embedded within the interRAI CHA). Overall, sensitivity was 100% for VL, 97.1% for HL, and 96.9% for DSL. Specificity was at least 93% in all three groups. In participants who failed the MoCA (i.e., at risk of mild cognitive impairment), the sensitivity was 100% for VL, 96.8% for HL and 96.2% for DSL; in those who were not at risk, the sensitivity was 100% for VL, and 97.4% for HL and DSL. In participants classified by the CPS as borderline intact or mild cognitively impaired, sensitivity was 100% in all groups; in those classified as cognitively intact, sensitivity was 100% for VL, 97.0% for HL, and 96.8% for DSL. These results suggest that the interRAI CHA detects VL, HL, and DSL in high agreement with performance-based measurements of vision and hearing. The interRAI CHA shows high accuracy even in participants with mild cognitive difficulties. Since results were found in a specific population of older rehabilitation clients who all had sensory difficulties, further research is needed to understand its role in screening in other more diverse groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.