Setting research priorities in age-related vision loss: The first step in a critical participatory action research approach

Abstract

There are no known examples of studies utilizing a critical participatory action research (CPAR) approach with older adults aging with vision loss, to better understand how environmental factors impact activity engagement. As such, the aim of this article was to share the process of initiating a CPAR approach with older adults with age-related vision loss to identify a set of research and/or rehabilitation priorities related to the influence of physical, social, cultural, political, and institutional environmental factors on activity engagement. This study utilized a CPAR approach. Eight older adults (aged 65 years of age and older) with a diagnosis of age-related vision loss (including macular degeneration, glaucoma, and/or diabetic retinopathy) took part in three half-day meetings as well as a one-on-one interview over a period of 2 months. Through a series of facilitated group discussions, the older adults identified research and/or rehabilitation priorities related to how environmental influences support or limit the participation of older adults with age-related vision loss (ARVL) in everyday activities. Three research and/or rehabilitation priorities were identified including (1) community mobility; (2) assistive technology; and (3) community support and services. For each priority, the older adults, along with the researchers, answered four key questions including (1) What do we need to know more about? (i.e., research question); (2) How could we learn more about this? (i.e., proposed methods of data collection); (3) Who would we need to involve as key stakeholders? (i.e., participants); and (4) What would change look like? (i.e., action potential). This study shared the process of initiating a CPAR process with eight older adults with ARVL to identify research and/or rehabilitation priorities. By doing so, this study will help to provide direction for future ARVL research and rehabilitation that is grounded, methodologically, in a CPAR approach.

Keywords

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alma

Van Der Mei

Melis-Dankers

Van Tilburg

Groothoff

Suurmeijer

(2011). Participation of the elderly after vision loss. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(1), 63–72.

Berg

(2004). Action research. In Berg

(Ed.), Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (pp. 195–208). Pearson.

Berger

Porell

(2008). The association between low vision and function. Journal of Aging and Health, 20(5), 504–525.

Blair

Minkler

(2009). Participatory action research with older adults: Key principles in practice. The Gerontologist, 49(5), 651–662.

Boerner

Wang

(2010). How it matters when it happens: Life changes related to functional loss in younger and older adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 70(2), 163–179.

Charlton

J. I.

(1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. University of California Press.

Corrado

A. M.

Benjamin-Thomas

T. E.

McGrath

Hand

Laliberte Rudman

(2020). Participatory action research with older adults: A critical interpretive synthesis. The Gerontologist, 60(5), e413–e427.

Desrosiers

Wanet-Defalgue

Temisijian

Gresset

Dubois

Renaud

Vincent

Rousseau

Carignan

Overbury

(2009). Participation in daily activities and social roles of older adults with visual impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(15), 1227–1234.

Fine

Torre

M. E.

(2004). Re-membering exclusions: Participatory action research in public institutions. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 15–37.

10.

Grue

Ranhoff

Noro

Finne-Soveri

Jensdottir

Ljunggren

Bucht

Bjornson

Jonsen

Schroll

Jonsson

(2008). Vision and hearing impairments and their associations with falling and loss of instrumental activities in daily living in acute hospitalized older persons in five Nordic hospitals. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 23(4), 635–643

11.

Jääskeläinen

(2010). Think-aloud protocol. In Gambier

van Doorslaer

(Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1, pp. 371–374). John Benjamins.

12.

Kidd

S. A.

Kral

M. J.

(2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187–195.

13.

Knudtson

Klein

Cruickshanks

Lee

(2011). Age-related eye disease, quality of life, and functional activity. Archives of Ophthalmology, 123, 807–814.

14.

Kusenbach

(2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 455–485.

15.

Laliberte Rudman

Durdle

. (2008). Living with fear: The lived experience of community mobility among older adults with low vision. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 17, 106–122.

16.

Lamoureux

Hassell

Keeffe

(2004). The impact of diabetic retinopathy on participation in daily living. Archives of Ophthalmology, 122, 84–89.

17.

Maiter

Simich

Jacobson

Wise

(2008). Reciprocity: An ethic for community-based participatory action research. Action Research, 6(3), 305–325.

18.

McGrath

Laliberte Rudman

Spafford

Trentham

Polgar

(2017). Environmental barriers and the production of disability for seniors with age-related vision loss (ARVL): A critical ethnographic study. Canadian Journal on Aging, 36(1), 55–66.

19.

Muhammad

Wallerstein

Sussman

A. L.

Avila

Belone

Duran

(2015). Reflections on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045–1063.

20.

Quartilho

Simkiss

Zekite

Xing

Wormald

Bunce

(2016). Leading causes of certifiable visual loss in England and Wales during the year ending 31 March 2013. Eye, 30(4), 602–607.

21.

Sandwick

Fine

Greene

Stoudt

Torre

Patel

(2018). Promise and provocation: Humble reflections on critical participatory action research for social policy. Urban Education, 53(4), 473–502.

22.

Spafford

M. M.

Laliberte Rudman

Leipert

B. D.

Klinger

Huot

(2010). When self-presentation trumps access: Why older adults with low vision go without low-vision services. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 29(5), 579–602.

23.

Vision Rehabilitation Evidence Based Review Team. (2005). Vision rehabilitation: Evidence-based review. Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

24.

Wittich

Jarry

Groulx

Southall

Gagné

J. P.

(2016). Rehabilitation and research priorities in deafblindness for the next decade. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 110(4), 219–231.