Barriers to Ophthalmologic Care Reported by Family Caregivers of Users and Non-Users With Intellectual Disabilities

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research Pub Date : 2026-07-02 Epub Date: 2026-06-02 DOI:10.1111/jir.70123
Chiun-Ho Hou, Yueh-Ching Chou, Shu-Fang Shih, Christy Pu
{"title":"Barriers to Ophthalmologic Care Reported by Family Caregivers of Users and Non-Users With Intellectual Disabilities","authors":"Chiun-Ho Hou,&nbsp;Yueh-Ching Chou,&nbsp;Shu-Fang Shih,&nbsp;Christy Pu","doi":"10.1111/jir.70123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>People with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are more likely to experience vision-related impairments, yet they face many barriers to accessing eye care. Although previous studies have described these barriers, few have compared barriers reported by families who have and have not accessed ophthalmologic care, which may provide insight into barriers interpreted as anticipated or experienced.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The study objectives are to compare barriers to ophthalmologic care reported by family caregivers of users and non-users and to interpret these differences as anticipated or experienced barriers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 657 primary family caregivers in Taichung City and Hualien County, Taiwan, between August and October 2023. Caregivers selected from a list of 13 predefined barriers. Participants were classified as ‘users’ (<i>n</i> = 261) if they had taken their family member with IDs for an eye examination and ‘non-users’ (<i>n</i> = 396) otherwise. For interpretation, barriers reported significantly more often by non-users were labelled as ‘anticipated’, whereas those reported significantly more often by users were labelled as ‘experienced’; these labels were based on service use status rather than direct temporal measurement. Logistic regression with marginal effects was used to identify predictors of the most common anticipated barrier.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A clinic environment perceived as unwelcoming or inaccessible was reported by 17.6% of non-users and 4.5% of users (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Users more frequently reported difficulty participating during appointments or examinations (9.95% vs. 4.25%, <i>p</i> = 0.004), equipment that could not be adapted (8.0% vs. 4.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.043), limited availability of accessible assessment tools (7.1% vs. 3.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.043) and limited provider experience in delivering accessible care for people with IDs (7.6% vs. 2.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.003). Higher caregiver strain and having ≥ 2 vision-related conditions were associated with reporting the environmental barrier.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Barriers reported by non-users suggest that perceptions of clinics as unwelcoming or inaccessible may discourage families from seeking a first eye examination for people with IDs. Improving accessibility and the care environment, alongside staff training and adaptable equipment and assessment tools, may reduce barriers reported by both non-users and users.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":"70 8","pages":"845-857"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jir.70123","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.70123","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

People with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are more likely to experience vision-related impairments, yet they face many barriers to accessing eye care. Although previous studies have described these barriers, few have compared barriers reported by families who have and have not accessed ophthalmologic care, which may provide insight into barriers interpreted as anticipated or experienced.

Objective

The study objectives are to compare barriers to ophthalmologic care reported by family caregivers of users and non-users and to interpret these differences as anticipated or experienced barriers.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 657 primary family caregivers in Taichung City and Hualien County, Taiwan, between August and October 2023. Caregivers selected from a list of 13 predefined barriers. Participants were classified as ‘users’ (n = 261) if they had taken their family member with IDs for an eye examination and ‘non-users’ (n = 396) otherwise. For interpretation, barriers reported significantly more often by non-users were labelled as ‘anticipated’, whereas those reported significantly more often by users were labelled as ‘experienced’; these labels were based on service use status rather than direct temporal measurement. Logistic regression with marginal effects was used to identify predictors of the most common anticipated barrier.

Results

A clinic environment perceived as unwelcoming or inaccessible was reported by 17.6% of non-users and 4.5% of users (p < 0.001). Users more frequently reported difficulty participating during appointments or examinations (9.95% vs. 4.25%, p = 0.004), equipment that could not be adapted (8.0% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.043), limited availability of accessible assessment tools (7.1% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.043) and limited provider experience in delivering accessible care for people with IDs (7.6% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.003). Higher caregiver strain and having ≥ 2 vision-related conditions were associated with reporting the environmental barrier.

Conclusion

Barriers reported by non-users suggest that perceptions of clinics as unwelcoming or inaccessible may discourage families from seeking a first eye examination for people with IDs. Improving accessibility and the care environment, alongside staff training and adaptable equipment and assessment tools, may reduce barriers reported by both non-users and users.

有智力障碍的使用者和非使用者的家庭照顾者报告的眼科护理障碍。
背景:智障人士(id)更有可能经历与视力相关的障碍,但他们在获得眼科护理方面面临许多障碍。虽然以前的研究已经描述了这些障碍,但很少有研究比较那些接受过和没有接受过眼科护理的家庭报告的障碍,这可能会提供对预期或经历的障碍的理解。目的:本研究的目的是比较眼科使用者和非使用者的家庭护理人员报告的障碍,并将这些差异解释为预期或经历的障碍。方法:于2023年8 - 10月对台湾台中市和花莲县657名初级家庭照顾者进行横断面调查。从13个预定义障碍列表中选择的看护者。如果参与者带着有身份证件的家庭成员进行眼科检查,他们被归类为“用户”(n = 261),否则被归类为“非用户”(n = 396)。为了解释,非用户报告的障碍被标记为“预期的”,而用户报告的障碍被标记为“经历的”;这些标签是基于服务使用状态,而不是直接的时间测量。使用边际效应的逻辑回归来确定最常见的预期障碍的预测因子。结果:17.6%的非使用者和4.5%的使用者认为诊所环境不受欢迎或难以接近(p结论:非使用者报告的障碍表明,诊所不受欢迎或难以接近的看法可能会阻碍家庭为身份证患者寻求第一次眼科检查。改善可及性和护理环境,以及工作人员培训和适应性强的设备和评估工具,可以减少非使用者和使用者报告的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书