Low vision rehabilitation over the course of a year: The experiences and feelings of elderly people with visual impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services aim to help people of all ages with visual impairment (VI) to maintain and improve their quality of life and well-being. However, knowledge about elderly people’s subjective experiences of the usefulness as well as their expectations of LVR is very limited. The aim of this study was therefore to produce new knowledge that can be utilized in the development and improvement of LVR processes and services in order to better support well-being and quality of life, and encourage the ‘active aging’ of elderly people with VI.Methods: Qualitative research methods were used. The data was collected from elderly people with VI (n = 35) by unstructured telephone interviews one year after the onset of individual LVR. The data was analyzed by inductive content analysis.Results: Numerous and varied expectations were expressed for LVR, showing mainly hopes for vision improvement and the need for services and support. The impact of medical care on vision outcome was mentioned in relation to the perceived benefits of LVR. LVR was generally considered useful in terms of overall well-being and quality of life, the main practical benefits being the provision of different visual aids and assistive devices.Conclusions: The results proved the concept, process and multi-sided nature of LVR to be incompletely perceived by the participants in the study. In light of this, we argue that there is a need for improved communication between people with VI and medical staff when discussing the nature and the realistic possibilities of LVR; care should be taken to distinguish it from medical care. The benefits of LVR in enabling independence in daily tasks were commonly recognized, however.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".