Are rehabilitation professionals familiar with visual impairments? A survey of professional orders in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: The number of patients with mild to moderate visual impairments (MVIs) is increasing as the average age of the population increases. Thus, it is important to understand the training and resources available for rehabilitation practitioners to provide adequate care to these patients within their scope of practice. PURPOSE: This study explores rehabilitation professionals' perceptions of their competence in screening and treating patients with MVI, and identifying the tools and resources needed to increase these professionals' comfort level in managing these patients. METHODS: Data collection was carried via an online questionnaire to Quebec rehabilitation professionals and student-trainees who are members of their respective professional orders. The questionnaire consisted of 29 to 30 questions (open- and close-ended) related to demographics, service provision to MVI patients, education in MVI and future training, and future service delivery to MVI patients. RESULTS: Data were collected from 96 professionals, with 52 fully completing the questionnaire, with all the responses included in the analysis. Most respondents had little or no confidence in adequately screening or treating patients with MVI and mentioned that they knew little or nothing about the range of services offered by vision rehabilitation centers in Quebec (81%), whereas 55% at least occasionally offer services to these patients. The majority felt that their profession would benefit from continuing education on MVI (73%), with a marked interest in online training. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation professionals in Quebec are not confident in identifying or treating patients presenting MVI but express an interest in attending continuing education courses given by optometrists, low vision professionals, or a member of their own profession. Numerous barriers account for this problem, including a lack of experience and competence in the assessment and treatment options for MVI, as well as a lack of informational and human resources available in their workplaces.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".