Factors that influence the participation of individuals with deafblindness: A qualitative study with rehabilitation service providers in India
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence to inform rehabilitation service delivery for individuals with deafblindness, especially in the Indian context, is inadequate. Rehabilitation professionals often find it challenging to design rehabilitation interventions that promote participation for those with deafblindness. Therefore, our purpose was to understand the contextual factors that influence the participation of individuals with deafblindness in India from the perspectives of those who are involved in providing rehabilitation services to them. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as a framework, we conducted two focus group discussions with 16 rehabilitation service providers in India. We used a content analysis approach to examine the data. Rehabilitation service providers perceived participation barriers to be linked primarily to the social environment. Specifically, participants identified four major factors acting as barriers, including (a) lack of awareness about deafblindness; (b) negative attitudes and stigma associated with disability; (c) lack of access to resources such as assistive technology and interpreter support; and (d) communication challenges associated with severe impairments. Facilitators include accessibility of the built environment for multisensory impairments, affordable technology, provision of an interpreter and personal support worker, and training on deafblindness for professionals. The participation of individuals with deafblindness could be enhanced by identifying and removing environmental barriers and improving knowledge about deafblindness among rehabilitation professionals for proper identification, assessment, and access to rehabilitation services.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it