Meaning and experiences of participation: a phenomenological study with persons with deafblindness in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Deafblindness, also known as dual sensory loss, creates a distinct condition more disabling than either deafness or blindness alone. The participation experiences of persons with deafblindness have not been understood well. This phenomenological study aims to understand the meanings of participation for persons with deafblindness and identify the domains of life that are important to them.Methods: We used the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a guiding framework. Sixteen adults with deafblindness were interviewed between March and May 2017 in India using a qualitative interview guide.Results: Findings suggest participation as a dynamic, individualized construct that is not just an end outcome. Rather, it is a means to achieve other goals important to the participants such as gaining respect, autonomy, independence, support and relationships, to fulfill aspirations and responsibilities, and to feel included and recognized in society. Life domains that they deemed important for participation were communication and access to information, mobility, relationships, education and productivity, and recreation and leisure.Conclusions: In order to enhance societal participation of people with deafblindness, a significant change in the focus of rehabilitation services is required which involves professionals viewing participation as both a means and an end outcome while designing interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".