Quality of Life in Deafblind People and Its Effect on the Processes of Educational Adaptation and Social Inclusion in Canary Islands, Spain
, Irene Puerta-Araña 1 and Eva Ariño-Mateo 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very important topic, I love the results and discussion, concerning the FUMAT dimensions. But please, rewrite the specific objectives and hypotheses; also put them at the good place.
Please, improve the material and method section. In the paper, I proposed some suggestions.
Thank you
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments, the suggested changes have been made, and we hope they are sufficient to consider the final approval of the manuscript.
Kind regards
Changes made to the text have been marked with a different color, and deleted text has been crossed out and marked in red.
We have made the suggested changes
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations for the work done. It is a quality and important work for the scientific and academic community working in the sector.
For future occasions, with a view to deepen the work, the sample can be increased by contacting FASOCIDE, the Spanish Federation of Deafblind People, which brings together a very important group that is not included in FOAPS. It may be interesting to compare the QoL of the sample coming from each of the entities, or the perception of quality in the access to information.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments, the suggested changes have been made, and we hope they are sufficient to consider the final approval of the manuscript.
Kind regards
Changes made to the text have been marked with a different color, and deleted text has been crossed out and marked in red.
Thank you for your positive feedback on our work. We will take your suggestions into account for future work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript addresses a topic of interest to the scientific community such as the processes of adaptation and social inclusion and the quality of life of deafblind people. Next, the following recommendations are made to improve the evaluated text:
TITLE: The title does not clearly reflect the content of the manuscript. It is recommended to include the geographical location of the study: "Quality of life in deafblind people and its effect on the processes of adaptation and social inclusion in Canarias, Spain".
KEY WORDS: It is necessary to review the keywords. The use of the word “organizational dehumanization” (not used in the text) is debatable. It is recommended to include the keywords: deafblind, quality of life, Canary Islands.
INTRODUCTION: The study does not provide sufficient background. The manuscript is supported by only 46 references. Likewise, 40% of the references are obsolete or do not focus on the subject. Here, it is important to carry out an exhaustive review of the scientific literature, from journal articles indexed to bibliographic databases (Web of Science or Scopus). It is suggested to review antecedents related to the concepts of quality of life, social inclusion, and adaptation. Also, it is recommended to review the literature on validation methods of quality of life in deafblind people.
METHODOLOGY: It is necessary to explain the Materials and Methods more clearly. The combination of the FUMAT scale and semi-structured interviews is not specified in detail. The use of the FUMAT scale (focused on the elderly) is debatable. There is no adequate adaptation and validation of the FUMAT scale questionnaire for the group of deafblind people. The number of interviews that were recorded is not indicated. Also, the characteristics of the sample selection must be specified. The age groups analyzed (27-43 years; 44-55 years; 56-70 years) are questionable. The geographical location of the participants (urban or rural) and how it may influence the results are unknown. Likewise, it is suggested to describe the dimensions and variables analyzed. It is recommended to correctly formulate the starting hypotheses of the investigation.
RESULTS: The results are not presented clearly, so it is necessary to review this section. It is proposed to better relate the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants and the place of residence with the needs and quality of life. Also, to favor statistical analysis, it is recommended to aggregate the data by age groups (under 65 years of age and over 65 years of age); by labor activity (active, unemployed, retired); and by degree of autonomy (being able or not to make decisions autonomously). It is suggested to carry out a multivariate analysis on the determining factors of the quality of life of deafblind people. It is recommended to include new tables and illustrative graphs. Also, there is an inconsistency in the data. In the manuscript (line 152) it says: “Finally, 90.90% lived with someone and 9.09% alone”. However, in the manuscript (line 232) it says: "Only two participants reported living by themselves" (2/25), that is, 8% of the total (not 9.09%). In addition, the sum of both percentages gives 99.99% and not 100%. Also, in the manuscript (line 262) it says: “because the workspace was not adapted to their needs”. It is recommended to better explain this aspect of the influence of the physical environment at work.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: There is a limited theoretical discussion based on the results obtained in the study. It is recommended to discuss the results from the theory. It is suggested to explain what factors characterize the quality of life of deafblind people in the Canary Islands, as well as the main differences (if any) with other European social and cultural contexts. Also, in the manuscript (lines 380-381) it is said: "Most of the participants expressed their preference for associations, which from our point of view is not enough”. It is recommended to better argue this reasoning. Likewise, it is suggested to better analyze and explain the biases detected and their impact on the results. Also, it is necessary to better explain the limitations of the study. Likewise, it is important to improve the conclusions of the study, as well as to propose possible lines of research.
FORMAL ASPECTS: In the tables the sources and authorship of the elaboration must be indicated.
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments, the suggested changes have been made, and we hope they are sufficient to consider the final approval of the manuscript.
Kind regards
Changes made to the text have been marked with a different color, and deleted text has been crossed out and marked in red.
The manuscript addresses a topic of interest to the scientific community such as the processes of adaptation and social inclusion and the quality of life of deafblind people. Next, the following recommendations are made to improve the evaluated text:
TITLE: The title does not clearly reflect the content of the manuscript. It is recommended to include the geographical location of the study: "Quality of life in deafblind people and its effect on the processes of adaptation and social inclusion in Canarias, Spain".
We have changed the title of the article, as you suggested.
KEY WORDS: It is necessary to review the keywords. The use of the word “organizational dehumanization” (not used in the text) is debatable. It is recommended to include the keywords: deafblind, quality of life, Canary Islands.
Keywords: deafblindness, dual sensory impairment, quality of life, social welfare, autonomy, integration, and disability.
As you can see we have included in our keywords: deafblindness and quality of life.
We have not used the term "organizational dehumanization" in the text and it is not included in the key words section.
INTRODUCTION: The study does not provide sufficient background. The manuscript is supported by only 46 references. Likewise, 40% of the references are obsolete or do not focus on the subject. Here, it is important to carry out an exhaustive review of the scientific literature, from journal articles indexed to bibliographic databases (Web of Science or Scopus). It is suggested to review antecedents related to the concepts of quality of life, social inclusion, and adaptation. Also, it is recommended to review the literature on validation methods of quality of life in deafblind people.
Five articles have been added to the bibliography between 2018 and 2022.
METHODOLOGY: It is necessary to explain the Materials and Methods more clearly. The combination of the FUMAT scale and semi-structured interviews is not specified in detail. The use of the FUMAT scale (focused on the elderly) is debatable. There is no adequate adaptation and validation of the FUMAT scale questionnaire for the group of deafblind people. The number of interviews that were recorded is not indicated. Also, the characteristics of the sample selection must be specified. The age groups analyzed (27-43 years; 44-55 years; 56-70 years) are questionable. The geographical location of the participants (urban or rural) and how it may influence the results are unknown. Likewise, it is suggested to describe the dimensions and variables analyzed. It is recommended to correctly formulate the starting hypotheses of the investigation.
Since there are no specific evaluation materials for quality of life in deafblind people, the FUMAT scale is used, which was constructed to be applied to elderly people with disabilities and people with severe physical disabilities, as indicated in the scale's manual published in 2009. The sample of this study is composed of 25 adults with a severe physical disability such as deafblindness, hence the use of this scale was considered appropriate.
Each participant has been administered the FUMAT Scale questionnaire, as well as the semi-structured interview, therefore, the number of questionnaires and interviews are the same as the number of the sample, 25.
The geographic location of all participants is urban, so it was not taken as a variable to be taken into account in the analysis of the results.
The selection of the sample was based on the number of volunteers who wished to participate in the study.
RESULTS: The results are not presented clearly, so it is necessary to review this section. It is proposed to better relate the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants and the place of residence with the needs and quality of life. Also, to favor statistical analysis, it is recommended to aggregate the data by age groups (under 65 years of age and over 65 years of age); by labor activity (active, unemployed, retired); and by degree of autonomy (being able or not to make decisions autonomously). It is suggested to carry out a multivariate analysis on the determining factors of the quality of life of deafblind people. It is recommended to include new tables and illustrative graphs. Also, there is an inconsistency in the data. In the manuscript (line 152) it says: “Finally, 90.90% lived with someone and 9.09% alone”. However, in the manuscript (line 232) it says: "Only two participants reported living by themselves" (2/25), that is, 8% of the total (not 9.09%). In addition, the sum of both percentages gives 99.99% and not 100%. Also, in the manuscript (line 262) it says: “because the workspace was not adapted to their needs”. It is recommended to better explain this aspect of the influence of the physical environment at work.
Changes have been made and suggestions have been considered.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: There is a limited theoretical discussion based on the results obtained in the study. It is recommended to discuss the results from the theory. It is suggested to explain what factors characterize the quality of life of deafblind people in the Canary Islands, as well as the main differences (if any) with other European social and cultural contexts. Also, in the manuscript (lines 380-381) it is said: "Most of the participants expressed their preference for associations, which from our point of view is not enough”. It is recommended to better argue this reasoning. Likewise, it is suggested to better analyze and explain the biases detected and their impact on the results. Also, it is necessary to better explain the limitations of the study. Likewise, it is important to improve the conclusions of the study, as well as to propose possible lines of research.
The discussion has been completely reformulated based on the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
FORMAL ASPECTS: In the tables the sources and authorship of the elaboration must be indicated.
Table 1 has the numbering of the bibliographic reference.
Tables 2, 3 and 4 are self-elaborated and have been indicated as follows.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript addresses a topic of interest to the scientific community such as the processes of adaptation and social inclusion and the quality of life of deafblind people. The evaluated study makes a significant contribution to the topic.
The new version of the evaluated manuscript has made improvements to the text (abstract, background, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions), following the recommendations. In this regard, the introduction provides sufficient background supported by a correct review of the international literature. In turn, the proposed design is appropriate for research. Furthermore, the methods are adequately described, and the results are clearly presented. Likewise, the discussion and conclusions are supported by the results.
Finally, we consider that the new manuscript has been improved and now guarantees publication in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH).
