Enablers and barriers encountered by working-age and older adults with vision impairment who pursue braille training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We explored the experiences of working-age and older adults with acquired vision impairment who pursued braille rehabilitation training, and the facilitators and barriers they encountered throughout this process. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews of up to 90 min in length were conducted with 14 participants from across Canada who learned braille between the ages of 33 and 67 (Mdn = 46). Transcripts were analyzed by two researchers using interpretive phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: A variety of personal, social and institutional factors characterize the adult braille learning experience. Among these, participants highlight the role of prior identity and experience, the impact of access to resources and the cost of materials and devices needed to maintain braille skills. Findings also emphasize invisible barriers, including the role of societal perceptions towards braille, the level of support provided by family and friends, and the influence of unconscious biases towards braille and aging held by both adult learners and those around them. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide important context to improve policies and practice in adult braille rehabilitation. As the prevalence of age-related vision impairment continues to increase, it will become imperative to understand the unique needs of working-age and older adults with acquired vision impairment who pursue braille.Implications for REHABILITATIONThis study is one of the first to explore the experiences of working-age and older adults with acquired visual impairment who pursue braille rehabilitation training.Rehabilitation professionals must take into account prior learning and reading experiences which may shape the braille learning process.Family members require greater access to resources and support during the training process.There is a significant need for public education to address societal misconceptions about braille and blindness that can lead to a reluctance to use braille.Interactions with other braille users foster more empowering definitions of braille that align with the social model understanding of disability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".