Barriers to Low Vision Rehabilitation: A Qualitative Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This study sought to describe and better understand barriers to accessing low vision rehabilitation services. Methods A qualitative description research paradigm was employed. Focus group participants were recruited through their involvement in the Montreal Barriers Study in Montreal, Canada. Six focus groups (n = 21 participants) were conducted to assess perspectives (both positive and negative) about accessing low vision rehabilitation services, and in particular the barriers to accessing these services. Interview transcripts were prepared and analyzed using content analysis. Results Analyses revealed barriers inherent to the person (perceived ability to comfortably engage in activities of daily living and gradual participatory losses); the clinic (inefficiencies in educating clientele about low vision rehabilitation services, and problems and dissatisfaction associated with ophthalmic consultations); and society (fears associated with having stereotypes applied and transportation is the setting where clashes occur). Discussion The generated themes revealed barriers to low vision rehabilitation services inherent to the individual, to interactions with vision health professionals, and to interactions with the sighted community. A representative model is proposed. The model design highlights three elements arising from the analyses: the time elapsed since the onset of the vision loss; the complex interactions between the individual, the healthcare setting, and the society; and the overall dynamic nature of help-seeking. Implications for practitioners There is a need for improved communication between consumers and providers to facilitate clients seeking out low vision rehabilitation services. Providers should solicit user perspectives and attempt to achieve a good fit between client needs and services adopted.
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 | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".