Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33324283›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

'Dual Sensory Loss Protocol' for Communication and Wellbeing of Older Adults With Vision and Hearing Impairment - A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Hilde L Vreeken, Ruth M A van Nispen, Sophia E Kramer, Ger H M B van Rens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Additional interventions for enhancing the quality-of-life of older adults using hearing aids: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hilde L VreekenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ruth M A van NispenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Sophia E KramerDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Section Ear and Hearing, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ger H M B van RensDepartment of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLElkerliek Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMany older adults with visual impairment also have significant hearing loss. The aim was to investigate the effectiveness of a newly developed Dual Sensory Loss (DSL) protocol on communication and wellbeing of older persons with DSL and their communication partners (e.g., spouse or child) in the Netherlands and Belgium.

methodsParticipants (

resultsIntention-to-treat analyses showed a significant effect of the DSL-protocol on the use of verbal strategies (effect size SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.95) in favor of the control group, however, this effect was non-significant after adjustment for confounding. Effect sizes of other outcomes varied between -0.23 [-0.57, 0.12] and 0.30 [-0.05, 0.64]. The LMM showed a significant effect on the HHDI-Reaction of others scale in favor of communication partners in the treatment group, however, the effect did not remain significant at a 0.01 significance level and the effect size was very small and non-significant 0.12, 95% CI [-0.27 to 0.51]. Adjusted analyses did not reveal treatment effects.

conclusionThe DSL-protocol did not clearly contribute to the enhancement of communication and wellbeing in DSL-patients. Possible reasons for the lack of effects are OTs not being comfortable giving advice on communication and psychosocial issues or the short-term treatment and follow-up period. Further study is warranted to find out how the protocol may be adapted or whether it is necessary to involve mental healthcare professionals. CLINICAL

trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NTR2843.

Indexed as

agedcommunicationcommunication partnerdeaf-blind disordersdual sensory impairmenthearing disordersquality of lifevision disorders

Identifiers

PMID33324283
PMCPMC7725686
OpenAlexW3110586726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.