Previous studies have guided the development of deafblindness rehabilitation by reporting on the priorities of researchers and of deafblind individuals; however, service and care providers may be able to bring a different and important perspective to shaping the development of this clinical field and its research. The present study aims to give them a voice in this process.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative survey in which 68 stakeholders in deaf-blind rehabilitation from 6 countries described their perceived research and rehabilitation priorities for the coming decade. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis through open coding, creating categories, and abstraction.
Results
Three categories of priorities emerged: those common to rehabilitation and research (such as assistive technology, communication services, and interdisciplinarity), those unique to rehabilitation (such as augmented service provision), and those unique to research (such as recruitment databases and measurement tools).
Conclusions
When viewing the findings from within the context of the existing research literature, the overlap indicated that research and rehabilitation efforts are moving in a congruent direction for researchers, service providers, and persons with deafblindness. Future efforts should focus on information exchange in order to improve evidence-based rehabilitation practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ask LarsenF., & DamenS. (2014). Definitions of deafblindness and congenital deaf-blindness. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(10), 2568–2576.
2.
BarryC. A.BrittenN.BarberN.BradleyC., & StevensonF. (1999). Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9(1), 26–44.
3.
BerryP.MasciaJ., & SteinmanB. A. (2004). Vision and hearing loss in older adults: “Double trouble.”Care Management Journals, 5(1), 35–40.
4.
BlumsackJ. T. (2009). Dual sensory loss: A guide for outreach to primary care physicians. Seminars in Hearing, 30(3), 207–221.
5.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development.California: Sage.
CarabelleseC.AppollonioI.RozziniR.BianchettiA.FrisoniG. B.FrattolaL., & TrabucchiM. (1993). Sensory impairment and quality of life in a community elderly population. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 41(4), 401–407.
8.
ChouK. L. (2008). Combined effect of vision and hearing impairment on depression in older adults: Evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Journal of Affective Disorders, 106(1-2), 191–196.
9.
DamenG. W.KrabbeP. F.KilsbyM., & MylanusE. A. (2005). The Usher lifestyle survey: Maintaining independence: A multi-centre study. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 28(4), 309–320.
10.
DamenG. W.PenningsR. J. E.SnikA. F. M., & MylanusE. A. M. (2006). Quality of life and cochlear implantation in Usher syndrome type I. Laryngoscope, 116(5), 723–728.
11.
DammeyerJ. (2009). Congenitally deafblind children and cochlear implants: Effects on communication. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 14(2), 278–288.
12.
DammeyerJ. (2010). Prevalence and aetiology of congenitally deafblind people in Denmark. International Journal of Audiology, 49(2), 76–82.
13.
DammeyerJ. (2012). Development and characteristics of children with Usher syndrome and CHARGE syndrome. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 76(9), 1292–1296.
14.
EloS., & KyngasH. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.
15.
ErberN., & SchererS. C. (1999). Sensory loss and communication difficulties in the elderly. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 18(1), 4–9.
16.
Gaylord-RossR.ParkH. S.JohnstonS.LeeM., & GoetzL. (1995). Individual social skills training and co-worker training for supported employees with dual sensory impairment. Two case examples. Behavior Modification, 19(1), 78–94.
17.
GeruschatD. R. (1980). Orientation and mobility for the low-functioning deaf-blind child. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 74(1), 29–32.
18.
GildenD., & JaffeD. L. (1988). Dexter: A robotic hand communication aid for the deaf-blind. International Journal for Rehabilitation Research, 11(2), 198–199.
19.
GrahamI. D.LoganJ.HarrisonM. B.StrausS. E.TetroeJ.CaswellW., & RobinsonN. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24.
20.
GuthrieD. M.PitmanR.StoleeP.StrongG.PossJ.TjamE. Y.BowmanL. (2011). Reliability of standardized assessment for adults who are deafblind. The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 48(5), 545–554.
21.
HallW. A.LongB.BermbachN.JordanS., & PattersonK. (2005). Qualitative teamwork issues and strategies: Coordination through mutual adjustment. Qualitative Health Research, 15(3), 394–410.
22.
HögnerN. (2015). Psychological stress in people with dual sensory impairment through Usher syndrome type II. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(3), 185–197.
23.
JaffeD. L. (1994). Evolution of mechanical fingerspelling hands for people who are deaf-blind. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 31(3), 236–244.
24.
JeeJ.WangJ. J.RoseK. A.LindleyR.LandauP., & MitchellP. (2005). Vision and hearing impairment in aged care clients. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 12(3), 199–205.
25.
LancioniG. E.OlivaD., & GnocchiniF. (1998). Enhancing independent indoor travel and activity in a woman with multiple disabilities through special technology. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 21(4), 409–413.
26.
LeJeuneB. J. (2010). Aging with dual sensory loss: Thoughts from consumer focus groups. AER Journal: Research and Practice in Visual Impairment and Blindness, 3(4), 146–152.
27.
LueyH. S. (1994). Sensory loss: A neglected issue in social work. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 21(4), 213–223.
28.
LupsakkoT.MantyjarviM.KautiainenH., & SulkavaR. (2002). Combined hearing and visual impairment and depression in a population aged 75 years and older. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17(9), 808–813.
29.
McDonnallM. C. (2011). The effect of productive activities on depressive symptoms among older adults with dual sensory loss. Research on Aging, 33(3), 234–255.
30.
MorseJ., & FieldP. A. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
PrimroseM. (1981). Orientation and mobility training for deaf-blind adults. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75(3), 147–149.
32.
RanjbarP., & StenströmI. (2013). Monitor, a vibrotactile aid for environmental perception: A field evaluation by four people with severe hearing and vision impairment. The Scientific World Journal, Article ID# 206734.
33.
RönnbergJ., & BorgE. (2001). A review and evaluation of research on the deaf-blind from perceptual, communicative, social and rehabilitative perspectives. Scandinavian Audiology, 30(2), 67–77.
34.
RusalemH. (1962). Development of the Anne Sullivan Macy service for deaf-blind persons. The New Outlook for the Blind, 56(8), 278–282.
35.
SaundersG. H., & EchtK. V. (2007). An overview of dual sensory impairment in older adults: Perspectives for rehabilitation. Trends in Amplification, 11(4), 243–258.
36.
ScheffelinM. A. (1981). Employability of persons who are both deaf and blind. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 4(1), 92.
37.
ScheinJ. D. (1980). The significance of the 1978 Rehabilitation Act amendments for educators of deaf-blind children. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 74(5), 175–178.
38.
SchneiderJ.GopinathB.McMahonC.TeberE.LeederS.WangJ., & MitchellP. (2012). Prevalence and 5-year incidence of dual sensory impairment in an older Australian population. Annals of Epidemiology, 22(4), 295–301.
39.
SeelmanK. D.PalmerC. V.OrtmannA.MormerE.GuthrieO.MieleJ., & BrabynJ. (2008). Quality-of-life technology for vision and hearing loss. IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Magazine, 27(2), 40–55.
40.
SmithS. L.BennettL. W., & WilsonR. H. (2008). Prevalence and characteristics of dual sensory impairment (hearing and vision) in a veteran population. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 45(4), 597–609.
41.
SwenorB. K.RamuluP. Y.WillisJ. R.FriedmanD., & LinF. R. (2013). The prevalence of concurrent hearing and vision impairment in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, 173(4), 312–313.
42.
ThomasJ. E. (1972). Mobility education for multiply handicapped blind children in day schools: What it encompasses. The New Outlook for the Blind, 66(9), 307–314.
43.
VernonM., & DuncanE. (1990). Advances in rehabilitation of deaf-blind persons. Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation, 3, 167–184.
44.
WagnerG. (1961). The caseworker faces the adolescent. The New Outlook for the Blind, 55(9), 299–302.
45.
WilliamsJ. R. (2008). The Declaration of Helsinki and public health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86, 650–651.
46.
WintersR. K. (1989). Adapting the environment to age-related sensory losses. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 1(4), 106–111.
47.
WittichW.SouthallK., & JohnsonA. (2015). Usability of assistive listening devices by older adults with low vision. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1–8. DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1042076
48.
WittichW.SouthallK.SikoraL.WatanabeD. H., & GagnéJ.-P. (2013). What's in a name: Dual sensory impairment or deafblindness?British Journal of Visual Impairment, 31(3), 198–207.
49.
WittichW.WatanabeD., & GagnéJ.-P. (2012). Sensory and demographic characteristics of deafblindness rehabilitation clients in Montréeal, Canada. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics: The Journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 32(3), 242–251.
