Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35696373›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

People with intellectual and sensory disabilities can independently start and perform functional daily activities with the support of simple technology.

Giulio E Lancioni, Nirbhay N Singh, Mark F O'Reilly, Jeff Sigafoos, Gloria Alberti, Valentina Del Gaudio, Chiara Abbatantuono, Paolo Taurisano, Lorenzo Desideri

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Giulio E LancioniDepartment of Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Nirbhay N SinghDepartment of Psychiatry, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, United States of America.
Mark F O'ReillyCollege of Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, GA, United States of America.
Jeff SigafoosSchool of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Gloria AlbertiLega F. D'Oro Research Center, Osimo, Italy.
Valentina Del GaudioLega F. D'Oro Research Center, Osimo, Italy.
Chiara AbbatantuonoDepartment of Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Paolo TaurisanoDepartment of Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6140-9326
Lorenzo DesideriLega F. D'Oro Research Center, Osimo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2091-2907
Astronomical Observatory of Capodimonte · ITUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITAugusta University · USVictoria University of Wellington · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe study assessed a smartphone-based technology system, which was designed to enable six participants with intellectual disability and sensory impairment to start and carry out functional activities through the use of reminders and verbal or pictorial instructions.

methodsThe technology system involved a Samsung Galaxy A22 with Android 11 operating system and four Philips Hue indoor motion sensors. Three to five activities were scheduled per day. At the time at which an activity was due, the system provided the participant with a reminder followed by the verbal or pictorial instruction for the initial part of the first response (e.g., "Go to the bathroom and take the dirty towels"). The instruction would be available (repeated) until the participant responded to it and, in so doing, activated a sensor. Sensor activation caused the presentation of the instruction for the second part of the same (first) response (e.g., "Put the towels in the laundry machine"). The same process occurred for each of the responses involved in the activity. The system was introduced according to nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs across participants.

resultsDuring baseline, the mean percentage of activities the participants started independently was below 7; the mean frequency of correct responses per activity was below 0.5 (out of a maximum possible of 8). During the intervention (i.e., with the support of the technology system), the mean percentage and mean frequency values increased to nearly 100 and 8, respectively.

conclusionsThe data suggest that the aforementioned technology system may enable people with intellectual disability and sensory impairment to start and carry out functional activities independent of staff.

Indexed as

DeafnessIntellectual DisabilityPersons with DisabilitiesHumansSmartphoneTechnology

Identifiers

PMID35696373
PMCPMC9191722
OpenAlexW4282827894

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.