ArticleBMJ open2021
Device abandonment in deafblindness: a scoping review of the intersection of functionality and usability through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health lens.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 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
- What's behind the Dashboard? Intervention Mapping of a Mobility Outcomes Monitoring System for Rehabilitation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Improving staff awareness of sensory aid needs and dementia status in an old age ward.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Beyond the fingertips: imagining haptic technologies for a deafblind future.Medical humanities · 2025Article
- From abandonment to adoption: advancing assistive technologies for blindness and low vision in the AI era.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Development of core sets for deafblindness using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: the perspectives of individuals with lived experience.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- Information Accessibility in the Form of Braille.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Promoting Universal Equitable Accessibility: An Overview on the Impact of Assistive Technology in the UN, UNICEF, and WHO Web Portals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Predictable Factors of People with Asymmetrical Hearing Loss Wearing a Hearing Aid in the Worse Ear Only.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Interventions for adults with deafblindness - an integrative review.BMC health services research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAbandonment of vision, hearing or mobility aids suggests common barriers and facilitators to ongoing device use. However, the possible interactive effects of combined hearing and vision disabilities on device use by those living with deafblindness are unclear. Here we summarise existing knowledge on variables influencing assistive technology use from the perspective of persons living with deafblindness. We used the WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework to contextualise the findings, asking 'What is currently known about variables influencing the (non-)use of assistive devices recommended for persons with deafblindness?'
designA scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. DATA SOURCES: PubMed; ProQuest: ERIC; ProQuest Dissertation; ProQuest: Sociological Thesaurus; Web of Science; Scientific Electronic Library Online; Bielefeld Academic Search Engine; Pascal & Francis; APA PsycINFO and Ebsco for CINAHL were searched through 9 November 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included peer-reviewed studies that reported on assistive technology, device abandonment/utilisation and provided data from persons living with deafblindness. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Four team members independently scored 83 studies for eligibility.
resultsTen articles were chosen for data extraction. The emerging variables replicated established categories of barriers and facilitators: personal, device-related, environmental and intervention variables. The use of the ICF highlighted how an intermediate variable (eg, device acceptability) was necessary in order for a variable to become a barrier or a facilitator to device use.
conclusionsThe variables influencing device use by persons with deafblindness followed the same categories described for single impairments. Usability was challenged in devices that rely on the 'other' sense. Haptic and tactile aids are rarely studied. The limited available information and the dire need for assistive technologies for people with deafblindness emphasises the urgency of research and technology development for this marginalised population.
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.