Barriers and facilitators in the referral pathways to low vision services from the perspective of patients and professionals: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Underutilization of and lack of access to low vision services (LVS) has been reported internationally. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators in LVS referral procedures and service delivery from both the perspective of people with visual impairment and professionals from different eye care providers in the Netherlands. METHODS: A qualitative study in the Netherlands was conducted. Barriers and facilitators were explored through semi structured interviews with older adults with macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and/or glaucoma (n = 14), and healthcare professionals including ophthalmologists and LVS professionals (n = 16). Framework analysis was used for analyzing the interviews with Atlas.ti software. RESULTS: According to both patients and professionals, facilitators in LVS access and utilization are having motivation, self-advocacy, high participation needs and social support, as well as being negatively impacted by the impairment. Both samples found having good communication skills and informing patients about LVS as a healthcare provider to facilitate access. A long patient-provider relationship and the Dutch healthcare system were also mentioned as facilitators. Professionals additionally found long disease duration and the presence of low vision optometric services in the ophthalmic practice to promote access. Barriers that were reported by patients and professionals are lack of motivation, self-advocacy and acceptance of the impairment in patients. In addition, having low participation needs as a patient, lack of information provision by providers and time constraints in the ophthalmic practice were mentioned as barriers. Professionals also reported lack of social support, short disease duration of patients, a short patient-provider relationship and lack of coordination of care in the ophthalmic practice to hinder access. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that providers' lack of information provision about LVS, especially to patients who are less assertive, hamper referral to LVS. Providers should have attention for patients' LVS needs and actively inform them and their social network about LVS to facilitate access. Educating and training providers about how and when to address LVS may help to reduce barriers in the referral pathways. In addition, referral procedures may benefit from tools that make providers more aware of LVS.

"Thinking a Lot" Among the Khwe of South Africa: A Key Idiom of Personal and Interpersonal Distress.

"Thinking too much", and variations such as "thinking a lot", are common idioms of distress across the world. The contextual meaning of this idiom of distress in particular localities remains largely unknown. This paper reports on a systematic study of the content and cause, consequences, and social response and coping related to the local terms |x'an n|a te and |eu-ca n|a te, both translated as "thinking a lot", and was part of a larger ethnographic study among the Khwe of South Africa. Semi-structured exploratory interviews with community members revealed that "thinking a lot" refers to a common experience of reflecting on personal and interpersonal problems. Consequences were described in emotional, psychological, social, behavioral, and physical effects. Coping strategies included social support, distraction, and religious practices. Our contextualized approach revealed meanings and experiences of "thinking a lot" that go beyond a psychological state or psychopathology. The common experience of "thinking a lot" is situated in socio-political, economic, and social context that reflect the marginalized and displaced position of the Khwe. We argue that "thinking a lot" and associated local meanings may vary across settings, may not necessarily indicate psychopathology, and should be understood in individual, interpersonal, community, and socio-political dimensions.

A review of barriers to using psychiatric advance directives in clinical practice.

Despite advocacy and demand for psychiatric advance directives (PADs), uptake and implementation in clinical practice is low. We examine why PAD implementation has been difficult globally by reviewing barriers in existing evidence. The review includes 30 studies, and identified 13 barriers, clustered into system level barriers, health professional level barriers, and service user level barriers. The considerable barriers to uptake and implementation hamper PAD use. We propose several potential strategies for overcoming some of the barriers. In order to realise these strategies, additional research is needed, particularly more field-based and operational research to understand processes and difficulties experienced in clinical practice.

Translation and content validity of the Dutch Impact of Vision Impairment questionnaire assessed by Three-Step Test-Interviewing.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from exsudative retinal diseases may experience severe central vision loss and this might have impact on their daily activities and quality of life. To measure the disabilities these patients may have, the use of the Impact of Vision Impairment Profile questionnaire is recommended. The aim of this study was to translate the original English 28-item Impact of Vision Impairment Profile (IVI) into the Dutch language and evaluate its comprehensibility, comprehensiveness and relevance as evidence of content validity. The translation process was performed using standardized methods. Content validity was assessed by cognitive debriefing using a Three-Step Test-Interview (TSTI) method for participants diagnosed with exudative retinal diseases. Step 1 and 2 focused on assessment of comprehensibility of items, step 3 on comprehensiveness and relevance. Audio-recorded qualitative data was analyzed using Atlas.ti. Data regarding comprehensibility problems was further categorized into item-specific problems and general problems. RESULTS: Few minor discrepancies in wording were found after translation. After conducting 12 cognitive interviews, data saturation was reached. All participants reported comprehensibility problems resulting from specific items, these were; sentence structure, vocabulary and formulation, influence of conditions or composite items and influence of comorbid disorders. Several general comprehensibility problems resulting from instructions or response categories were detected. The main general comprehensibility problem resulted from the layout of the Dutch-IVI. Most participants considered the included items as relevant and indicated that they covered the problems that occur due to vision impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Minor problems in the Dutch translation were detected and adjusted. The layout and instructions of the Dutch-IVI resulted in some comprehensibility problems. The Dutch-IVI appeared to be at risk of being interpreted as a generic patient reported outcome measure, instead of a disease-specific instrument, mainly due to the influence of co-morbidities. Adaptations should improve validity and reliability of the Dutch-IVI, however, cross-cultural comparisons may be at stake.