No abstract

IntroductionAcademic writing is a core element of a successful graduate program, especially at the doctoral level. Graduate students are expected to write in a scholarly manner for their thesis and scholarly publications. However, in some cases, limited or no specific training on academic writing is provided to them to do this effectively. As a result, many graduate students, especially those having English as an Additional Language (EAL), face significant challenges in scholarly writing. Further, faculty supervisors often feel burdened by reviewing and editing multiple drafts and find it difficult to help and support EAL students in the process of scientific writing. In this study, we explored academic writing challenges faced by EAL doctoral students and faculty supervisors at a research intensive post-secondary university in Canada.Methods and AnalysisWe conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-method study using an online survey and subsequent focus group discussions with EAL doctoral students (n = 114) and faculty supervisors (n = 31). A cross-sectional online survey was designed and disseminated to the potential study participants using internal communications systems of the university. The survey was designed using a digital software called Qualtrics™. Following the survey, four focus group discussions (FGDs) were held, two each with two groups of our participants with an aim to achieve data saturation. The FGD guide was informed by the preliminary findings of the survey data. Quantitative data was analyzed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) and qualitative data was managed and analyzed using NVivo.DiscussionThe study findings suggest that academic writing should be integrated into the formal training of doctoral graduate students from the beginning of the program. Both students and faculty members shared that discipline-specific training is required to ensure success in academic writing, which can be provided in the form of a formal course specifically designed for doctoral students wherein discipline-specific support is provided from faculty supervisors and editing support is provided from English language experts.Ethics and DisseminationThe general research ethics board of the university approved the study (#6024751). The findings are disseminated with relevant stakeholders at the university and beyond using scientific presentations and publications.

Background Individuals with deafblindness experience a combination of hearing and vision impairments. The World Health Organization has developed a global framework referred to as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to describe health and functioning. From the full ICF classification, a selection of categories, referred to as ICF Core Sets, provide users with a tool to describe functioning and disability in specific health conditions. There has been no ICF Core Set created for deafblindness. Given that core sets are instrumental in improving clinical practice, research, and service delivery, the aim of this study is to develop an ICF Core Set for deafblindness. Methods As part of the preparatory phase in the ICF Core Set development, there are four studies that will be conducted. This includes the [1] systematic literature review that examines the researcher’s perspective, [2] qualitative study focusing on the individuals with deafblindness experience, [3] experts survey that looks at health professional’s perspective, and [4] empirical study that examines the clinical perspective. The studies will be conducted using the principles outlined by the ICF Research Branch for the development of ICF Core Sets. The systematic literature review protocol was submitted for registration on PROSPERO CRD42021247952. Discussion An ICF Core Set created for deafblindness will benefit individuals living with deafblindness who are often excluded from social participation, policies, and services. An ICF Core Set for deafblindness will have a significant impact on healthcare professionals, policymakers, researchers, service providers and individuals with deafblindness by facilitating communication among all stakeholder to support the functioning of those with deafblindness.

Introduction The authors of this paper have compiled a report on the prevalence of deafblindness and dual-sensory loss based on the review of existing estimates. The purpose is to inform readers of the importance of using consistent, well-researched definitions and survey questions in future prevalence studies. Methods Articles were extracted through ProQuest and EBSCOhost, online library databases of Cambrian College and Laurentian University. Keywords search included “deafblindness,” “dual-sensory impairment,” “dual-sensory loss,” “age-related,” “congenital,” “acquired,” and “prevalence.” Additionally, the authors conducted a search with Google for research reports and Google Scholar for other relevant peer-reviewed articles. Results This review provides a current overview of prevalence estimates of deafblindness and age-related dual-sensory loss around the world, examining 19 articles or reports published over the last 20 years (2000–2020) in 18 countries, including the European Union (consisting of 8 countries). In line with the prevalence estimates by the World Federation for the Deafblind global report 2018, the review indicates an estimated 0.2–2% prevalence of dual-sensory impairment and underscores varying ranges of prevalence among populations, studies or countries, age groups, and types of deafblindness. The review highlights that the prevalence of deafblindness or dual-sensory loss was often not comparable across studies, but it is clear that the prevalence of dual-sensory impairment increases with age. The studies varied in methods (e.g., population surveys, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies). Implication for practitioners The review provides evidence of varying ranges of prevalence rates. Future prevalence studies may benefit from consistent definitions, standard data-collection tools to do better comparisons across countries, and identify factors that predict higher or lower prevalence rates among populations and age groups.

Background and Objectives A global report estimates up to 2% of the world population experience concurrent hearing and vision impairment (dual sensory impairment/DSI). Older adults with DSI are often frequent users of healthcare, yet the evidence is limited to inform care delivery for this population. This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence on tools and strategies for screening, assessment, and interventions that promote a continuum of care for older adults with DSI. Research Design and Methods The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews. Electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Global Health, and Web of Science) and clinical trial registries (ISRCTN Registry, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched. The quality appraisal was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results Of 4775 identified references, 28 records were selected. The review identified seven tools and seven strategies for DSI-specific screening, assessments and/or interventions. Some of the most promising tools were the interRAI Community Health Assessment (CHA) with deafblind supplement, adapted Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Severe Dual Sensory Loss (SDSL) screening tool. Useful strategies included the use of alternative forms of communication, assistive devices or technology, education and training for service providers, and training of older adults on the use and maintenance of assistive aids/technology. However, quality appraisal indicated a need for more robust evidence to inform clinical practice. Discussion and Implications Reviewed evidence pinpointed the need for training for healthcare providers on DSI-specific challenges and supports and the use of integrated multidisciplinary care for older adults. Future studies need to explore the development and evaluation of tools and interventions to improve the continuum of care for this group.