在英国少数民族社区视力受损成年人样本中探索优先问题

Nikki Heinze, Lee Jones, C. Castle, Renata S. M. Gomes
{"title":"在英国少数民族社区视力受损成年人样本中探索优先问题","authors":"Nikki Heinze, Lee Jones, C. Castle, Renata S. M. Gomes","doi":"10.3390/disabilities4030030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite an increased risk of visual impairment (V.I.) among adults from minority ethnic communities in the UK, limited research has explored their wider life experiences. Methods: A secondary analysis of V.I. Lives survey data explored priority issues among a sample of 46 Asian, 22 Black, and 77 White adults who have visual impairment A list of 24 issues were grouped into 10 life domains. Issue and domain mean importance scores were calculated for each to facilitate ranking of importance. Results: Kruskal–Wallis tests showed that there were statistically significant differences between the three groups for 7/10 domains and 19/24 issues. Post hoc comparisons showed that this largely reflected group differences between Asian and White participants. While there were no statistically significant differences between Asian and Black participants possibly due to small sample sizes, there were statistically significant differences between Asian and White participants in 7/10 domains and 14/24 issues. Additionally, there were significant differences between Black and White participants in 5/10 domains and 7/24 issues, specialist workplace equipment being the only issue with a significant difference between White and Black but not Asian participants. There were no group differences for confidence in ability to do everyday tasks and opportunities to take part in more sporting and leisure activities. Overall, White participants generally rated all issues as less important than Asian and Black participants. The top-three domains for Asian participants were ‘accessible environments’/‘finances’, ‘technology’, and ‘public attitudes’. The top-three issues were accessibility of public transport, employer attitudes, and reduction of street clutter. The top-three domains among Black participants were ‘employment’, ‘accessible environments’, and ‘emotional support’. The top-three issues were employer attitudes/specialised education for young people with V.I., specialist V.I. equipment in the workplace, and confidence in ability to do everyday tasks/accessibility of public transport. Conclusions: Differences in priorities between the groups suggest that the needs of individual communities may be lost when grouping culturally diverse communities together, highlighting the need for more research with different minority ethnic communities.","PeriodicalId":505877,"journal":{"name":"Disabilities","volume":"92 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Priority Issues among a Sample of Adults from Minority Ethnic Communities Who Are Living with Visual Impairment in the UK\",\"authors\":\"Nikki Heinze, Lee Jones, C. Castle, Renata S. M. Gomes\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/disabilities4030030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Despite an increased risk of visual impairment (V.I.) among adults from minority ethnic communities in the UK, limited research has explored their wider life experiences. Methods: A secondary analysis of V.I. Lives survey data explored priority issues among a sample of 46 Asian, 22 Black, and 77 White adults who have visual impairment A list of 24 issues were grouped into 10 life domains. Issue and domain mean importance scores were calculated for each to facilitate ranking of importance. Results: Kruskal–Wallis tests showed that there were statistically significant differences between the three groups for 7/10 domains and 19/24 issues. Post hoc comparisons showed that this largely reflected group differences between Asian and White participants. While there were no statistically significant differences between Asian and Black participants possibly due to small sample sizes, there were statistically significant differences between Asian and White participants in 7/10 domains and 14/24 issues. Additionally, there were significant differences between Black and White participants in 5/10 domains and 7/24 issues, specialist workplace equipment being the only issue with a significant difference between White and Black but not Asian participants. There were no group differences for confidence in ability to do everyday tasks and opportunities to take part in more sporting and leisure activities. Overall, White participants generally rated all issues as less important than Asian and Black participants. The top-three domains for Asian participants were ‘accessible environments’/‘finances’, ‘technology’, and ‘public attitudes’. The top-three issues were accessibility of public transport, employer attitudes, and reduction of street clutter. The top-three domains among Black participants were ‘employment’, ‘accessible environments’, and ‘emotional support’. The top-three issues were employer attitudes/specialised education for young people with V.I., specialist V.I. equipment in the workplace, and confidence in ability to do everyday tasks/accessibility of public transport. Conclusions: Differences in priorities between the groups suggest that the needs of individual communities may be lost when grouping culturally diverse communities together, highlighting the need for more research with different minority ethnic communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"92 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:尽管英国少数民族社区的成年人罹患视力障碍(V.I.)的风险增加,但对他们更广泛生活经历的研究却很有限。研究方法:对 V.I. 生活调查数据进行二次分析,在 46 名亚裔、22 名黑人和 77 名白人视力受损成年人中抽样调查优先考虑的问题。计算出每个问题和领域的平均重要性分数,以便对重要性进行排序。结果Kruskal-Wallis 检验表明,三个组别在 7/10 个领域和 19/24 个问题上存在显著的统计学差异。事后比较显示,这主要反映了亚裔和白人参与者之间的群体差异。可能是由于样本量较小,亚裔和黑人参与者之间在统计上没有显著差异,但亚裔和白人参与者在 7/10 个领域和 14/24 个问题上存在显著差异。此外,黑人和白人参与者在 5/10 个领域和 7/24 个问题上存在显著差异,专业工作场所设备是白人和黑人参与者之间唯一存在显著差异的问题,但亚裔参与者之间没有显著差异。在对完成日常任务的能力的信心以及参加更多体育和休闲活动的机会方面,没有群体差异。总体而言,白人参与者对所有问题的重视程度普遍低于亚裔和黑人参与者。亚裔参与者认为最重要的三个领域是 "无障碍环境"/"财务"、"技术 "和 "公众态度"。亚裔参与者认为最重要的三个领域是 "无障碍环境/财务"、"技术 "和 "公众态度"。在黑人参与者中,排在前三位的领域分别是 "就业"、"无障碍环境 "和 "情感支持"。排名前三位的问题分别是雇主的态度/为患有 V.I.症的年轻人提供专门教育、工作场所的 V.I.症专业设备以及对完成日常任务的能力的信心/公共交通的无障碍性。结论:各群体在优先考虑事项上的差异表明,在将不同文化背景的群体归为一类时,可能会忽略个别群体的需求,这也凸显了对不同少数民族群体开展更多研究的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Priority Issues among a Sample of Adults from Minority Ethnic Communities Who Are Living with Visual Impairment in the UK
Background: Despite an increased risk of visual impairment (V.I.) among adults from minority ethnic communities in the UK, limited research has explored their wider life experiences. Methods: A secondary analysis of V.I. Lives survey data explored priority issues among a sample of 46 Asian, 22 Black, and 77 White adults who have visual impairment A list of 24 issues were grouped into 10 life domains. Issue and domain mean importance scores were calculated for each to facilitate ranking of importance. Results: Kruskal–Wallis tests showed that there were statistically significant differences between the three groups for 7/10 domains and 19/24 issues. Post hoc comparisons showed that this largely reflected group differences between Asian and White participants. While there were no statistically significant differences between Asian and Black participants possibly due to small sample sizes, there were statistically significant differences between Asian and White participants in 7/10 domains and 14/24 issues. Additionally, there were significant differences between Black and White participants in 5/10 domains and 7/24 issues, specialist workplace equipment being the only issue with a significant difference between White and Black but not Asian participants. There were no group differences for confidence in ability to do everyday tasks and opportunities to take part in more sporting and leisure activities. Overall, White participants generally rated all issues as less important than Asian and Black participants. The top-three domains for Asian participants were ‘accessible environments’/‘finances’, ‘technology’, and ‘public attitudes’. The top-three issues were accessibility of public transport, employer attitudes, and reduction of street clutter. The top-three domains among Black participants were ‘employment’, ‘accessible environments’, and ‘emotional support’. The top-three issues were employer attitudes/specialised education for young people with V.I., specialist V.I. equipment in the workplace, and confidence in ability to do everyday tasks/accessibility of public transport. Conclusions: Differences in priorities between the groups suggest that the needs of individual communities may be lost when grouping culturally diverse communities together, highlighting the need for more research with different minority ethnic communities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信