Abstract
Programme leaders (PLs; e.g., coaches) are integral for fostering the quality participation (QP) of blind and partially sighted athletes. However, information about fostering QP for blind and partially sighted people is often inaccessible to PL. Informed by the Quality Parasport Participation Framework, we formulated this scoping review related to the sport participation of blind and partially sighted people and the strategies that support QP. Searching four databases, we screened 1245 studies and included 29 articles, generating insight related to study characteristics and the extent of in/direct references to the experiential elements of QP. After interpretive analysis, we constructed three principles to reconceptualize sport participation in relevant and affirming ways for blind and partially sighted athletes, as well as 33 foundational support strategies and 16 outcomes potentially associated with the QP. This project contributes to the visibility of blind and partially sighted athletes in the literature and in the Quality Parasport Participation Framework.
Introduction
As a social institution, sport represents a dominant and influential aspect of society, with important implications for the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities (Spencer-Cavaliere et al., 2017). Often, sport is also positioned as an accessible social practice (MacDonald et al., 2012); however, numerous equity-owed groups, including blind and partially sighted people, 1 face barriers across multiple life domains that diminish their opportunities to participate in sport (Martin Ginis et al., 2021; Ruin et al., 2023). For instance, a study exploring access to sport for blind and partially sighted people revealed that 62% of respondents were unable to participate in certain sports, often their favourite sports, due to a lack of adequate modifications (Maśliński et al., 2020). As such, many scholars in the literature have extensively discussed existing barriers and facilitators, while orienting their work towards fostering positive sport outcomes for blind and partially sighted people (e.g., greater rates of participation, improved wellbeing) (Meier et al., 2023) and moving beyond a simple focus on quantity of participation.
Recognizing that promoting attendance does not necessarily ensure positive sport experiences, scholars have called for broader conceptualizations of participation that focus on subjective experiences (Hammel et al., 2008; Imms et al., 2017). For example, Martin Ginis and colleagues (2017) described six experiential elements that make up subjective experiences during acute and in-the-moment (i.e., while engaged in an activity, not an outcome) sport participation: belongingness, autonomy, meaning, engagement, challenge, and mastery. Moreover, the authors suggested the construct of quality participation (QP), defined as repeated quality experiences (i.e., meaningful and positive) during which the needs of participants are satisfied across these six experiential elements (Martin Ginis et al., 2017). Based on this definition of QP, Evans and colleagues (2018) then outlined the Quality Parasport Participation Framework, herein referred to as the QP framework, to support further research centring the subjective experiences of athletes during acute participation; to describe the conditions that are conducive to quality experiences; and to encourage the development of quality sport programming for diverse participants.
While the QP framework has not yet been widely applied within the context of blind sport research or practice, there are many parallels between existent research and the QP framework. For example, Haegele and Maher (2023) centred the perspectives of blind and partially sighted people while integrating aspects of subjective and relational experiences in their (re)conception of inclusion. In particular, they emphasized the complex interplay between each autonomous person’s relational, perceptual, and embodied experiences of sport, as well as the influence of the group experiences constructed by those participating alongside them (Haegele & Maher, 2023). This complexity is similarly represented in the QP framework through the co-existing conditions of the physical, programme, and social environments that are shaped by each participant/collective and, in turn, can become strategies implemented within the collective to foster QP. Both Haegele and Maher’s (2023) conception of inclusion and the QP construct (Martin Ginis et al., 2017) characterize these experiences as dynamic and in flux, dependent on the unique individuals and collectives they form. Given these parallels, we believe that there are opportunities for scholars engaging these diverse approaches to further complement one another, particularly as we continue to explore possibilities for promoting the meaningful participation of blind and partially sighted people in current and future sport programmes.
Programme leaders (PLs) have a critical role in shaping the experiences of diverse disabled participants in mainstream and disability sport (Maher et al., 2023; Townsend et al., 2015). Despite their influence, Oldörp and colleagues (2024) emphasized that PLs are seldom adequately trained to support blind or partially sighted people. This is then compounded by the lack of available guidance regarding the quality experiences of blind or partially sighted athletes (Columna et al., 2019). To address the lack of guidance related to supporting diverse disabled people in sport more generally, the Canadian Disability Participation Project (CDPP, 2018) has developed and applied a process for creating evidence-informed resources including the Blueprint for Building Quality Participation in Sport for Children, Youth, and Adults with Disabilities (herein referred to as the blueprint). The rigorous and systematic blueprint development process centres around a review of existent literature to inform practical recommendations and has been applied numerous times since its creation. For example, the original blueprint is oriented towards the participation of people with physical disabilities and provides an overview of the development process, definitions of key terms, and 25 foundational strategies across the physical, programme, and social environments that can foster QP across the six experiential elements. Supported by the knowledge generated by Streatch and colleagues (2022) and Bruno and colleagues (2022), subsequent versions of the blueprint were created to specifically reflect the unique experiences and support needs of autistic children and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (respectively), offering additional strategies that may be used to foster QP. To reflect the sport experiences and needs of other, diverse athletes, we sought to centre evidence describing the experiences and needs of blind or partially sighted people in an additional adaptation of the blueprint.
Guided by this goal, we conducted a scoping review to engage with the currently available literature pertaining to the sport experiences of blind or partially sighted people. More specifically, the purpose of the review was to conceptualize the positive, in-the-moment sport experiences of blind or partially sighted people and identify specific strategies that foster these experiences. To guide this review, we formulated the following research questions using the population/participants, concept, and context (PCC) approach suggested by Peters and colleagues (2020), as members of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping Reviews Methodology Group:
RQ1. What literature is currently available describing quality experiences of participation in sport among blind or partially sighted people?
RQ1a. Which experiential elements of QP are featured in the experiences described?
RQ2. How can the experiential elements of QP be fostered in sport for blind or partially sighted athletes (i.e., foundational strategies)?
RQ2a. Who, in what role(s), provides the support necessary to facilitate quality participation of this population?
RQ3. What outcomes are associated with QP in sport?
Methodology/methods
Protocol and registration
The protocol for this project was formulated using the guidelines provided originally by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and subsequently updated by Peters et al. (2020), as members of the JBI Scoping Reviews Methodology Group. On 22nd November 2023, this scoping review was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform (Wing et al., 2023).
Search strategy
The librarian involved in the review, with extensive expertise in the field of human kinetics and related to disability and accessibility, identified the following four databases as relevant to the project: SportDiscus, Sports Medicine and Education Index, CINAHL, and APAPsycInfo. By searching all four of these databases, we captured literature from various disciplines to increase the breadth of our searches. Literature from all available years was included in the results; however, due to a lack of resources for translation, the searches were restricted to English language results.
The strategy employed in this review (see additional information in Supplemental Appendix A) encapsulated two main concepts: (a) disability and (b) sport. Keywords were chosen using the thesaurus and subject headings noted in the databases. Relevant terms, listed below, were identified and combined using the Boolean operators OR and AND; similar terms were combined using OR, while different concepts were combined using AND. Furthermore, each term was truncated and exploded where applicable. Due to the many uses of the word blind in various contexts apart from disability (e.g., experimental design, colloquial uses), results were limited by identifying commonly appearing irrelevant terms, then conducting searches to ensure their irrelevance, and combining them with the NOT operator. The results of these searches, conducted on 2 August 2024, were then uploaded to Covidence for deduplication and screening.
Eligibility criteria
To be included, studies were originally required to pertain to the quality sport experiences, meaning positive or personally satisfying, of blind or partially sighted people of any age and/or contain strategies that foster quality sport experiences. Studies were not required to directly reference QP nor specifically discuss the six experiential elements. Reflecting the diversity across cultures and contexts, sport was defined in this review as structured activity that involves physical exertion, undertaken in pursuit of a particular goal (Eime et al., 2020). Studies were excluded for the following reasons: (a) pertained to the experiences of disabled people without a specific focus on blindness and partial sight; (b) related to an exercise, physical education, or physical activity context without any mention of sport; or (c) focused solely on quantitative or non-subjective outcomes such as performance or quantity of participation. As suggested by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), the review process was iterative, with regular reflection on our progress and any adaptations were made accordingly. In particular, we revisited our inclusion and exclusion criteria throughout the review process and, during data extraction, amended our original formulation of the criteria to also exclude studies solely representing parental perspectives, as well as studies that discussed athlete experiences in the context of inclusion without providing a further definition nor particular subjective experiences associated with the term. Moreover, due to the nature of the methodologies as secondary syntheses of knowledge, scoping and systematic reviews were also excluded; however, the references of relevant scoping and systematic reviews (e.g., Ball, Lieberman, Haibach-Beach, et al., 2022; Gamonales et al., 2018; Skelton et al., 2013; Tuakli-Wosornu et al., 2020) represented in the screened literature were explored to ensure our search was comprehensive.
Study screening
The screening process involved three members of the research team (first and second authors and a student researcher), all using the same inclusion criteria (see Figure 1 for more information). To ensure that all reviewers were in agreement, these members of the research team met to discuss the review and, specifically, provide any necessary clarity on the inclusion criteria. Following deduplication, a total of 1245 studies were reviewed independently by the first and second authors against our inclusion criteria. Subsequently, 186 articles entered full-text screening – conducted independently by the first author and the student researcher. A total of 34 studies were included at the beginning of the data extraction process; however, after updating our inclusion/exclusion criteria, five studies were later excluded, for a total of 29 studies represented in this final iteration.
PRISMA flowchart.
Data extraction
From the 29 included articles (see Supplemental Appendix B for a full list), we extracted general study characteristics (see Table 1), QP experiential elements (see Table 2), strategies to foster QP (see Table 3), and outcomes related to QP (see Table 4). Of the 29 total articles, three studies recruited from or examined the same camp, Camp Abilities, although the studies were conducted in differing years. Given the interpretive nature of the scoping review, critical reflexive activities, including engagement with critical friends (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014) and personal reflection regarding one’s subjectivity, supported the review process and deepened the process of analysis, as outlined below.
Summary of included articles.
Experiential elements of quality participation.
Strategies to foster quality participation.
Outcomes associated with quality participation.
Data synthesis and analyses
The first author, who is a queer disabled/neurodivergent master’s student of Irish descent, led the interpretive process of data analysis, in collaboration with the sixth author, who acted as a critical friend (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014) and mentor. Engaging with the 29 included studies, we conducted our analysis, which were mainly deductive. For each study, we began by extracting the support strategies described within each study, as well as the experiences these strategies foster during active participation. These experiences were mapped onto the QP framework based on direct references to the experiential elements of QP and indirect references to the conceptualization of each element. While this did not occur, any experiential elements not currently represented within the QP framework but nonetheless fostered by support strategies would have been highlighted. We then combined these tables of strategies into six larger tables, one for each of the experiential elements of QP, and consolidated them to remove any repetition. Informed by the QP framework (Evans et al., 2018), we then grouped the strategies within each table based on the foundation strategies currently represented within the QP framework and compiled the remaining strategies (i.e., those not reflective of the foundational strategies) to ultimately generate the 33 total strategies found in Table 3. We then added headings within the tables to further organize the strategies according to the environment to which they pertained (e.g., multi-sensory, programme, social).
Moreover, we conducted inductive analysis using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019, 2021). We engaged with Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six stages of thematic analysis, supported by ongoing reflexivity on the part of the researcher, to ultimately construct three themes that emphasize the broader material and immaterial considerations related to the QP of blind and partially sighted athletes during sport. To do so, we considered the ways that authors in the literature positioned and defined effective support strategies, how they conceptualized the sport participation of blind and partially sighted people, and the points of convergence and divergence between the QP framework in its current form and these definitions and conceptualizations. We suggest that these themes can be adopted by PLs as guiding principles that, together, represent an ethos based on a reconceptualization of sport participation that may help to affirm the experiences and identities of blind and partially sighted athletes.
Results
Study characteristics
Of the 29 total studies published between 1986 and 2023, 18 were qualitative, five were programme review articles, three were practice reports, two were mixed methods, and one was quantitative (see Table 1). One study (Hall et al., 2023) directly cited the QP framework, relating their findings to the conception of belongingness in parasport contexts. Across all studies, 378 blind or partially sighted people directly participated in research, although numerous authors highlighted that other blind or partially sighted people were engaged throughout their respective research projects (e.g., advisory capacities, provided feedback). Using the age groups defined by the authors, nine studies reported on the experiences of adults (ages 18–67), although only one specifically investigated the experiences of older adults (ages 53–70), and eight studies pertained to the experiences of children and youth (ages 7–23). Of the 23 studies that recruited and engaged participants, four studies had no mention of sex or gender, while six studies directly reported either sex or gender. The other 13 studies alluded to the gender of some or all of the participants through the reporting of gendered pronouns (e.g., he/him) or gendered labels (e.g., mother, boy). Moreover, only six of the 23 studies discussed the race or ethnicity of participants, with an additional two studies reporting solely nationality. Three studies presented the perspective of sighted athletes and the perspectives of blind and partially athletes, and one study specifically explored the experiences of a sighted coach. Although parent-centred studies were excluded, three included articles presented the perspectives of parents on the sport experiences and participation of their blind or partially sighted children and youth. Seven articles discussed various residential sport camps for blind or partially sighted people – six pertaining to the Camp Abilities programme and the remaining study mentioning the Sport Education Camp. From the six studies mentioning Camp Abilities, three focused on the experiences of campers and/or the programming model employed at camp, while the other three recruited participants from attendees of the camp.
Experiential elements of QP
Across each of the included articles, all six of the QP experiential elements outlined in the QP framework (Evans et al., 2018) were referenced, either directly or indirectly. Direct mentions included the use of exact terminology (e.g., autonomy, mastery) or references to QP-related literature, while indirect references implicated the definitions of the experiential elements and associated strategies, as outlined in the QP framework (Evans et al., 2018). During data analysis, we synthesized no additional experiential elements. More specifically, we categorized 24 studies as relating to the experiential element of belongingness, with one study (Hall et al., 2023) directly referencing the QP conceptualization of belongingness provided by Evans and colleagues (2018). Mainly without citing Evans and colleagues (2018), we interpreted the following numbers of studies as relating to the remaining experiential elements: 19 studies related to engagement; 17 studies related to autonomy; 29 studies related to mastery; 16 studies related to meaning; and 16 studies related to challenge.
Principles and strategies for fostering QP
During data analysis, we generated the following three themes that are positioned within this review as principles that may be able to guide PLs during the development and provision of quality sport programming for blind and partially sighted people (see Figure 2 for a visual depiction): (a) consider the multi-sensory experiences associated with sport participation; (b) embrace and respect differences; and (c) embed personalization into programming. These three principles form an ethos that PLs may be able to use to inform their engagement throughout each stage of the QP framework (e.g., development and provision of quality sport programming). More specifically, we offer 33 strategies (see Table 3) based on our engagement with the literature, which we suggest represent specific examples of how to conceptualize and integrate these principles. By adopting this ethos, PLs may be able to reinforce a disability-centred conception of sport participation and affirm the experiences of blind and partially sighted athletes.
Visual depiction of generated principles within the quality parasport participation framework.
The first principle, consider the multi-sensory experiences associated with sport participation, reflects the numerous ways in which athletes experience sport. Although these dimensions are often overlooked in favour of the visual elements of participation, various sensations (e.g., embodied, auditory, tactile) are important aspects of sport experiences for many athletes and may be particularly important to conceptualize the experiences of blind and partially sighted athletes in sport contexts. The second principle is embrace and respect differences. By doing so, PLs may be able to cultivate an environment of safety and acceptance, encouraging participants to communicate their needs and share their unique perspectives. The last principle, embed personalization into programming, describes the uniqueness of each athlete, their diverse needs, and their individual preferences. This final principle encourages PLs to consider the individuality and diversity of the athletes they will serve throughout the creation, planning, and provision of programming to cultivate a culture and programme that is conducive to individualized support and accommodation. As such, PLs must consider these individual-level factors to cultivate a supportive and quality experience for all athletes while minimizing the othering experienced blind and partially sighted athletes. Together, these key principles describe a foundational perspective to guide one’s engagement with and implementation of the strategies presented (see Table 3).
Generated based on the strategies and experiences discussed within the 29 included studies, we outline 33 strategies that foster QP for blind and partially sighted athletes. Many of the 33 strategies foster multiple experiential elements, although 26 were specifically linked with belongingness, 23 with engagement, 21 with autonomy, 27 with mastery, 20 with meaning, and 13 with challenge. Each experiential element was associated with at least one strategy within each of the environments that comprise sport programming: multi-sensory (i.e., facilities and features of the environment; referred to in previous blueprints as physical), programme (i.e., programming-specific considerations), and social (i.e., aspects of the relationships and group dynamics) environments.
Outcomes
By engaging with the three principles and the associated strategies presented above, PLs may be able to foster QP for blind and partially sighted athletes, culminating in various positive outcomes. Of the 29 studies included in this review, 27 studies were categorized as discussing outcomes of QP for blind and partially sighted athletes. Table 4 displays the 16 outcomes organized in the following four groups: experiential, learning and skill development, perceptions of self, and connections with others. These outcomes represent both acute experiences associated with QP, as well as benefits related to longer-term engagement in quality sport experiences. However, the studies classified these acute and long-term outcomes inconsistently. For example, Hall and colleagues (2023) described the physical benefits resulting from quality sport experiences as a precursor for increased sport participation, while Kirk and Haegele (2021) emphasized the opposite relationship.
Discussion
This review explored the available literature pertaining to the sport experiences of blind and partially sighted people, as well as the support strategies associated with quality experiences and the outcomes of such participation. By critically engaging with the 29 included studies, we were able to determine that the QP framework, as outlined by Evans and colleagues (2018), was an appropriate framework through which to analyse the collected literature, with direct and indirect mentions to the experiential elements within each study. From the 29 studies included in this review, we generated three principles to support PLs in the provision of quality sport programmes. These principles represent novel contributions to the literature and extend the current QP framework (Evans et al., 2018) to reflect the experiences, perspectives, and support needs of blind and partially sighted athletes.
The first principle that PLs can engage to foster the six experiential elements of QP for blind and partially sighted athletes is to recognize the multi-sensory experiences associated with sport participation. This principle reflects the importance of reconstructing dominant understandings of sport participation to consider the embodied, affective, and aesthetic aspects of participation (Hall et al., 2023; Lynch et al., 2021; Powis & Macbeth, 2024). Some scholars have suggested that, to reconstruct these dominant understandings, it may be pertinent to reject achievement-centred goals that reinforce ableism and elitism and instead consider the embodied- and sensation-related features of participation when determining goals and achievement milestones (Lynch et al., 2021; Powis & Macbeth, 2024). This is particularly important given the ableist roots of mainstream sport (Spencer-Cavaliere et al., 2017) and the hegemonic understandings of sport participation based on visual aspects that are unreflective of the experiences and perspective of blind and partially sighted people (Oldörp et al., 2024; Powis, 2020). Congruent with the aspect of an ableism-critical approach (Oldörp et al., 2024), PLs may be able to engage this principle as they reject implicit ableist constructions of the body and instead consider the unique ways that blind and partially sighted people subjectively experience sport and QP.
To further reconstruct dominant understandings of sport participation, the second principle, embrace and respect differences, represents the attitude that PLs can adopt to guide their engagement with athletes. Based on this principle, PLs may be able to develop strength-based and affirming perspectives to recognize how each unique athlete enriches the group, beyond a deficit understanding of difference and disability. By integrating a strength-based perspective with an overt emphasis on differences, this principle reflects the available literature pertaining to the liberatory and affirmation models of disability (Swain & French, 2000), as well as the common critiques of these models (primarily the latter) that problematize the influence of compulsory able-bodiedness, conformity, and the erasure of disability (McRuer, 2006). The specific focus on differences is powerful to create space for athletes to express their identities (e.g., disability, gender, race) comfortably and in an environment that values differences, which is particularly pertinent to the sport experiences of blind and partially sighted people. Since the experiences of blindness or partial sight are largely embodied, sighted PLs are often unable to identify athletes with differing levels of sight without athletes sharing this information with them (Powis, 2020); however, the process of disclosing and advocating for oneself can be dehumanizing, othering, and tiresome for blind and partially sighted people (Ball, Lieberman, Beach, et al., 2022), as is echoed by other diverse athletes (Maher et al., 2023). Supported by the principle of embrace and respect differences, PLs may be able to foster the six experiential elements of QP for blind and partially sighted athletes by cultivating a safe environment for athletes to express themselves authentically, while, reciprocally, ensuring that PLs themselves receive pertinent information that allows them to support diverse athletes during programming.
In addition to the first and second principles, PLs can engage the third principle, embedding personalization into programming, to foster quality sport experiences for blind and partially sighted athletes. This principle reflects the importance of considering the individuality of the person, their needs, and their preferences to foster meaningful and supportive experiences – the absence of which has been suggested as a limitation of person-centred approaches (Parmenter & Arnold, 2008). More specifically, there is a pervasive misconception that people can either see or they cannot, similar to the ableist dichotomies of normal/disabled and normal/abnormal (Healey, 2017; Hill-Briggs et al., 2007). Consequently, this misconception manifests as erroneous assumptions about blind and partially sighted people that erase diversity and distort their preferences, support needs, and expectations in sport contexts (Powis, 2020). As such, the provision of support, tailored to the unique individual, is a particularly powerful method of fostering QP. Moreover, by positioning personalization as a feature of programming that is offered to the entire group, PLs may be able to minimize the othering experienced by blind and partially sighted athletes when they are the sole recipients of support and decrease the tiresome task of navigating existing, inaccessible policies (Ball, Lieberman, Beach, et al., 2022).
Recognizing the role that PLs have in the relational network of people who shape the sport context (Haegele & Maher, 2023), we outline these three principles and 33 distinct strategies through which they may be able to foster QP in sport for blind and partially sighted people. Informed by the unique knowledge in this body of literature constructed by scholars in conversation with blind and partially sighted athletes, the insight we offer in this scoping review represents both novel additions to and reconceptualizations of the foundational strategies represented within the QP framework, which are currently oriented towards the QP of autistic children (Streatch et al., 2022), children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Bruno et al., 2022), and disabled people more generally (CDPP, 2018). Moreover, we have suggested a broader definition of the physical environment category currently represented in the blueprints (e.g., see CDPP, 2018) to include the multi-sensory aspects of the places and spaces in which sport programming takes place.
Limitations and future directions
Having critically and extensively reviewed the 29 studies, we developed a unique perspective on the available literature, supporting us in highlighting various limitations of the current body of literature. Of the literature implicated in this review, the influence of intersecting identities on the lived experiences of athletes was largely overlooked. For example, few articles included the voices of older adults, with the oldest participant being 70 years old, and the majority of studies neglected to report the race/ethnicity of participants. However, it may be pertinent to consider the intersecting identities of athletes due to the salience of co-existing identities for the quality of sport experiences (The Sport Information Resource Centre, 2022) and due to the nature of disability as a complex construct with various dimensions including embodied, social, and political (Peers et al., 2014). While intersecting analyses were not prevalent in the reviewed literature, some scholars suggested the exploration of the cultural factors on participation and quality experiences, both to enrich programming and to effectively support diverse participants, as a future direction (e.g., Esatbeyoglu et al., 2023; Hall et al., 2023).
Moreover, the education sector was highly influential on the articles included in this review, with many articles centred on sport and physical education. In particular, the majority of the included articles referenced inclusion, a term that originated from the education sector, as their goal and/or adopted inclusive models of participation; however, the concept of inclusion often remained undefined by the authors – a pattern noted and problematized by Haegele and Maher (2023) due to the varied definitions, uses (e.g., as a programme model, outcome), and ideological underpinnings. In the future, it may be valuable for authors to engage in a reflexive process, as suggested by Haegele and Maher (2023), to clarify their use of the term and ensure that readers’ understandings of inclusion are in alignment with that of the authors. These reflections would have allowed us, in the present review, to further situate QP and subjective in-the-moment experiences in relation to these perspectives on inclusion.
Related to the present review, various limitations influenced our searches of the databases, including the restrictions to English language and peer-review studies. Future reviews would benefit from the inclusion of available grey literature to consider the potential insight represented within informal education (i.e., generated through experiences), grassroots and community-based organizations, and other perspectives not currently represented within mainstream databases. The team engaged in this project included diverse people with expertise in the field of disability and sport, as well as people who experience disability, although the team did not include a blind or partially sighted researcher or community member. Reflecting the participatory and emancipatory methods for which Haegele and Maher (2023) advocated, we will engage with blind and partially sighted community members as we continue to integrate these findings within the larger project and disseminate the generated insight.
Conclusions
Ultimately, this scoping review contributes to the available literature pertaining to the quality experiences and participation of blind and partially sighted athletes in sport. By engaging with this body of literature, we have integrated the rich insights offered by scholars, in conversation with the perspectives of blind and partially sighted people, into the QP framework to support the development and provision of quality sport programming. In particular, this project provides three unique principles associated with the quality experiences of blind and partially sighted athletes, as well as 33 generated strategies through which these principles are operationalized. By adopting these principles as an ethos to guide their programming, PLs and other supporters may be able to improve the quality of available programming in ways that affirm the identities and experiences of diverse athletes. The insight generated throughout this project will be disseminated to sport programmers and organizations through the creation and publication of a CDPP blueprint (see examples at www.cdpp.ca).
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-jvi-10.1177_02646196251330155 – Supplemental material for The sport experiences of blind or partially sighted people and strategies to support their participation in sport: A scoping review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jvi-10.1177_02646196251330155 for The sport experiences of blind or partially sighted people and strategies to support their participation in sport: A scoping review by Meredith K Wing, Julia Deuville, and Alyssa C Grimes, Zachary Scanlan, Kelly Arbour-Nicitopoulos and Amy E Latimer-Cheung in British Journal of Visual Impairment
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-jvi-10.1177_02646196251330155 – Supplemental material for The sport experiences of blind or partially sighted people and strategies to support their participation in sport: A scoping review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jvi-10.1177_02646196251330155 for The sport experiences of blind or partially sighted people and strategies to support their participation in sport: A scoping review by Meredith K Wing, Julia Deuville, and Alyssa C Grimes, Zachary Scanlan, Kelly Arbour-Nicitopoulos and Amy E Latimer-Cheung in British Journal of Visual Impairment
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Michele Chittenden, coordinator of Library Accessibility Services at Queen’s University, for her assistance in the development of the search strategy and protocol registration on the Open Science Framework, as well as Josh Kapur, an undergraduate student researcher, for his support during full-text screening.
Author contributions
MKW led the process, supported by regular meetings with the other authors. JD was involved in the conceptualization of the project and screening process. ZS and ACG were both involved in the conceptualization of the project and methodology. ACG also supported MKW in readying the manuscript for submission and ensuring the correct formatting. KA-N and AEL-C conceived the idea for the project and contributed significantly throughout each stage of the process, as well as provided ongoing mentorship and supervision to MKW. All authors provided feedback on various drafts of the full manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Drs. AEL-C and KA-N are current members of the Canadian Disability Participation Project Leadership Team, and their work has contributed to the creation and refinement of the Quality Parasport Participation Framework.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a Partnership Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant no. 895-2013-1021) for the Canadian Disability Participation Project (
) and a Sport Innovation Grant from Sport Canada.
Data availability statement
Additional information regarding methods and search strategy is available on the Open Science Framework at osf.io/dq7z5. More information about the search strategy is available as supplemental material.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
