Supports and barriers as experienced by individuals with vision loss from diabetes

Abstract

Physical and social environmental influences on functioning are complex. Adaptation to vision loss is an ongoing process that may be aided by peer interactions and more community-based rehabilitation. To best rehabilitate people with low vision due to diabetic retinopathy, the influence of both the physical and social environment along with psychological adaptation need to be considered. Periodic rehabilitation, interventions taking place in community settings and the formal inclusion of peers in the rehabilitation process may be indicated. Implications for Rehabilitation Consideration of the social as well as the physical environment is essential in the rehabilitation of people with low vision due to diabetic retinopathy. Adaptation to vision loss by those with diabetic retinopathy is complicated by the fact that diabetes is a systemic disease that affects multiple body systems. Psychological adaptation to vision loss is characterized by cycles of grieving and acceptance, which affects readiness for rehabilitation. Alternative approaches to rehabilitation may be indicated for people with low vision due to diabetic retinopathy, including periodic intervention over time and the inclusion of peers in the rehabilitation process.

Diabetes self‐care behaviors in adults with disabilities: A systematic review

“…One study demonstrated that healthcare professionals often have a limited awareness of the needs and abilities of this population, which impedes effective diabetes education (Williams, ). Participants' poor health, fear about disease progression, grief, and loss were also reported as barriers to diabetes self‐care behaviors (Kaminsky et al, ).…”

“…Factors reported as facilitators of diabetes self‐care behaviors included behavioral changes to adapt to the blind environment and using other senses such as sound, touch, and smell. Assistive devices, modifications to the physical environment, low‐vision services, voice‐recorded versions of educational materials, guidelines to enhance accessibility, and instructions to improve medical professionals' understanding of people with visual impairments were also regarded as facilitators (Kaminsky et al, ; Williams, ).…”

“…Item 10 was concerned with adequately representing the participants' voices. These six items were rated "yes" for seven of the qualitative studies (Cardol et al, 2012;Hale et al, 2011;Kaminsky et al, 2014;Livingstone et al, 2011;Rouse & Finlay, 2016;Whitehead et al, 2016;Williams, 2002). Item 7, which represents the influence of the investigators on studies, was rated zero.…”

“…In terms of study designs, seven articles used a qualitative design (Cardol et al, 2012;Hale et al, 2011;Kaminsky et al, 2014;Livingstone et al, 2011;Rouse & Finlay, 2016;Whitehead et al, 2016;Williams, 2002) and 12 used a quantitative design including quasi-experimental studies (Bernbaum et al, 1989;Carrington et al, 2001;Oehler-Giarratana & Fitzgerald, 1980;Prior et al, 1984;Trozzolino et al, 2003;Windecker et al, 1997), retrospective cohort studies (Patel et al, 2016;Reichard et al, 2012;Shireman et al, 2010;Tseng et al, 2006), and cross-sectional studies (Pham et al, 1996;Taggart et al, 2013). One article used participatory action research (Williams, 2005).…”

“…One study demonstrated that healthcare professionals often have a limited awareness of the needs and abilities of this population, which impedes effective diabetes education (Williams, 2002). Participants' poor health, fear about disease progression, grief, and loss were also reported as barriers to diabetes self-care behaviors (Kaminsky et al, 2014). Factors reported as facilitators of diabetes self-care behaviors included behavioral changes to adapt to the blind environment and using other senses such as sound, touch, and smell.…”