"If only balls could talk…": barriers and opportunities to participation for students with blindness and visual impairment in specialized PE

Purpose

For children with blindness and visual impairment (BVI) of all ages, disability sport and/or regular Physical Activity (PA) are deemed beneficial, promoting physical and mental health as well as increasing wellbeing and life satisfaction. In this regard, Physical Education (PE) serves as a foundation to regular and lifelong participation in PA, mainstream and/or disability sport. Research points towards manifold participation barriers for children with BVI in PE, which so far have mainly been investigated in inclusive settings and from the perspectives of sighted parents, teachers and peers. Consequently, people with BVI frequently consider PE a missed opportunity for lifelong PA. As transitioning from general to special schooling deems the only alternative to continue their education, questions arise in how far and in which ways specialized schools manage to accommodate their needs in PE. To address these gaps in literature, we investigated BVI students' perceived opportunities and barriers to participation in PE within a specialized school setting and their imaginations for possible (digital) improvements and solutions.

Materials and methods

Within the framework of Inclusive and Youth Participatory Action Research, we adopted the Mosaic Approach to investigate a sample of 19 students aged 14-20 at lower and upper secondary level in a specialized school in Austria. Data material included audio-recordings of interviews, student-guided school tours, photographs of significant places and objects and field protocols. The analysis was conducted with Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

Results and conclusion

Through the analysis, we identified three themes. The data material firstly revealed the complex intricacies of how PE teachers can act as facilitators and gatekeepers to autonomous PA. Secondly, material norms function not only as barriers to participation even in a specialized school setting, but also constitute the basis for social hierarchies between students with various degrees of visual impairment. Thirdly, students imagined manifold digital solutions to enhance participation derived from their perceived barriers. The findings contribute to amplifying BVI individuals' voices and provide revealing insights in how participation in PA is enabled and prohibited for students with BVI which can not only help to improve specialized but also inclusive settings.

Assessment of Response Bias Is Neglected in Cross-Sectional Blindness Prevalence Surveys: A Review of Recent Surveys in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

PURPOSE

Findings from cross-sectional blindness prevalence surveys are at risk of several biases that cause the study estimate to differ from the 'true' population prevalence. For example, response bias occurs when people who participate ('responders') differ from those who do not ('non-responders') in ways that affect prevalence estimates. This study aimed to assess the extent to which response bias is considered and occurs in blindness prevalence surveys in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science for cross-sectional blindness prevalence surveys undertaken in LMICs and published 2009-2017. From included studies, we recorded and descriptively analysed details regarding enumeration processes, response, and non-response, including the impact of non-response on results.

RESULTS

Most (95%) of the 92 included studies reported a response rate (median 91.7%, inter-quartile range 85.9-95.6%). Approximately half clearly described enumeration processes (49%), and reported at least one strategy to increase the response rate (53%); a quarter (23%) statistically compared responders and non-responders. When differential response was assessed, men were more likely to be non-responders than women. Two-thirds (65%) of the time a sociodemographic difference was found between responders and non-responders, a difference in blindness prevalence was also found. Only 13 studies (14%) commented on implications of non-response on prevalence estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Response rates are commonly reported from blindness prevalence surveys, and tend to be high. High response rates reduce-but do not eliminate-the risk of response bias. Assessment and reporting of potential response bias in blindness prevalence surveys could be greatly improved.