When Self-Presentation Trumps Access: Why Older Adults With Low Vision Go Without Low-Vision Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reasons were sought for low-vision service nonuse in a group of Canadian seniors with self-reported low vision. Audio-recorded semistructured interviews were completed with 34 seniors with low vision: age range (70 to 94 years; mean: 82 years); 16 urban dwellers (12 women); 18 rural dwellers (14 women). Qualitative content analysis and template analytic techniques were applied to transcriptions. Informant nonuse of low-vision services involved: insufficient knowledge, managing for now, and practitioner behavior (inadequate rehabilitation education and management). Underlying seniors’ attitudes that shaped their self-presentation and service nonuse included a strong need for independence, a contextualization of vision loss relative to other losses, and an acceptance of vision loss in life. Service delivery strategies should consider not only knowledge access and healthcare practitioner behavior but also senior self-presentation strategies (e.g., viewing aids as counterproductive to independence). Subtle rural-urban attitudinal differences may further delay access for rural seniors; further research is advised.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".