Health and Social Care Needs of Somali Refugees With Visual Impairment (VIP) Living in the United Kingdom
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
PURPOSE: To explore the health and social care needs of Somali refugees with visual impairment (VIP). DESIGN: We conducted a three-phased focused ethnography in collaboration with the Horn of Africa Blind Society (HABS) through all stages from research design to findings dissemination. METHOD: Engaging in participatory research, HABS members (n = 26), service providers (n = 10), and two Somali community groups (n = 8 and n = 7) whose members were sighted (Phase 1) took part in four focus group interviews. Phases 2 and 3 consisted of interviews with Somali refugees with VIP (n = 32) and their informal carers (n = 5). We used framework data analysis methodology. FINDINGS: Four major themes emerged: (1) sociocultural perceptions of blindness and visual impairment, (2) access to services, (3) isolation and insecurity, and (4) mobility. CONCLUSION: Somali people with VIP experience profound unmet social and health care needs related largely to social support, awareness of mobility options, and the stigmatization of visual impairment. Appropriate community outreach may improve access to services and quality of life for Somali people with VIP. Tailored information is needed to increase awareness of mobility and security services. Significant considerations exist when planning discharge from acute care settings to ensure continuity of support.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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