AB097. Barriers and facilitators related to the use of optical low vision aids, a scoping review
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In recent decades, several studies have been performed in the field of (non-)use of assistive technology devices (ATs) and have found that many variables are likely to be involved in the decision-making process of whether a person with a disability uses or abandons their aids. In low vision rehabilitation, high variability rates and a variety of reasons for non-use of low vision aids has been reported. Determinants of non-use of ATs have previously been categorized into personal factors, ATs factors, environmental factors of the user, and intervention factors. It is probable that some of these factors are also associated with the use of optical low vision aids (OLVAs). Thus, using a framework about adherence with medical interventions, the aim of this scoping review was to explore barriers and facilitators related to OLVAs (non-)use. Methods: Existing guidelines of the scoping review Methods were used to examine and summarize the extent, range, and nature of findings regarding factor categories associated to OLVAs usage. Searches were conducted using the following online databases: Embase, MedLine, and ERIC without limitation on publication dates. A combination of key words and MeSH terms was used based upon the identified core concepts of the research question: (I) low vision; (II) assistive technology; and (III) adherence. A charting form, a flow chart of the study selection process, and a combination of a descriptive numerical analysis and a thematic analysis of 24 studies were performed. Results: The results of this review indicate high variability rates (range: 13–50%, M =24%, SD =10%) of people possessing OLVAs but not using them. Most authors do not use a precise definition of “non-use”, and when a definition is provided, the terminology is inconsistent. As expected, the four categories of variables identified are likely to be involved in OLVAs’ (non-)use: (I) the largest number of concerns were personal factors. Several aspects regarding personal characteristics were identified, such as demographic, physical, psychological, social-emotional, and occupational factors. Some variables, such as age, diagnosis and visual acuity were reported as contradictorily influencing the OLVAs’ usage; (II) ATs factors were associated with quality, appearance, practical aspects of use and the very type of OLVAs; (III) environmental factors referred to social support, physical barriers, expectations of the social environment, presence of a helper, and stigmatization; (IV) finally, intervention factors consisted of taking into account user’s opinions, positive health care experiences, instruction and training, provision processes, delivery periods, and follow-up services. Conclusions: This scoping review provides the preliminary evidence that factors related to OLVAs non-use could be classified into the same four typical categories described in the theory of non-adherence. These results suggest that strategies intended to enhance adherence might be for OLVAs should focus on these four aspects of device use.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle