ArticleAdvances in rehabilitation science and practice
Unique Functional Profiles in Deafblindness: Evidence From a Comparative Analysis of ICF Core Sets.
Article in Advances in rehabilitation science and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study examined whether the functional implications of deafblindness can be understood as the simple sum of vision loss and hearing loss or whether deafblindness constitutes a distinct sensory disability. By comparing the comprehensive ICF Core Sets for vision loss, hearing loss, and deafblindness, the study aimed to determine the extent to which deafblindness reflects unique patterns of functioning beyond additive single sensory difficulties. Method: A secondary comparative analysis was conducted using all items from the three Core Sets that were classified according to the four ICF components (body functions, body structures, activities and participation, and environmental factors). Items were merged into a single dataset and coded for their presence in each condition. A systematic item-level comparison was performed to identify categories that were common to all three Core Sets, shared by two, or unique to a single sensory condition. No weighting was applied; all items were treated equally. The final output grouped items, reflecting different patterns of overlap and uniqueness. Results: The Core Sets contained 98 items for vision loss, 118 for hearing loss, and 219 for deafblindness. A total of 435 distinct categories were identified. Of these, 53 items appeared in all three conditions. Overlap showed 27 items shared between vision loss and deafblindness, 34 between hearing loss and deafblindness, and 11 between vision and hearing loss. Unique items were most pronounced in the deafblindness Core Set (n = 105), followed by hearing loss (n = 20) and vision loss (n = 7), indicating a substantial condition-specific functional profile for deafblindness. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that deafblindness is not merely the additive coexistence of vision and hearing loss but reflects a distinct and more complex functional profile. These findings support the need for condition-specific clinical approaches, policies, and assessment frameworks tailored to the unique demands of deafblindness.
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.