Background
Methods
Study design
Study population
participants
O&M-trainers
Orientation and mobility training
Regular training (usual care; control group)
Standardised training (intervention group)
Data collection
Outcome measures | Operationalisation | Measurement | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
SCR | Qt | TIp | ||
Usefulness
| ||||
Population reached | General characteristics of the participants and trainers | + | ||
Target population and proportion of the intended target population | + | + | ||
Number of participants that refused, dropped out or completed training and reasons for withdrawal | + | |||
Self-reported benefit or achievement | Benefit regarding the training according to trainers | + | ||
Benefit regarding the training according to participants | + | |||
Use of identification cane in daily life | + | + | ||
Achievement regarding to training goals | + | |||
Experienced barriers and potential solutions | Deviations of each session element* | + | ||
Main goal, strong and weak aspects of the training | + | + | ||
Hampering and encouraging factors of the standardised training* | + | |||
Matters for improvement – materials and standardised training* | + | |||
Acceptability
| ||||
Extent to which intervention was performed according to protocol | Format, preparation time and duration of the session | + | ||
Per session element: performance, duration and participation by participant* | + | |||
Extent to which participant achieved training goals* | + | |||
Participants’ exposure to and engagement in the training | Total number of sessions | + | ||
Use of materials* | + | |||
Opinion of trainer/participants regarding participant’s engagement | + | + | ||
Extent to which participants complied with contracts* | + | |||
Quality of action plans formulated by participant* | + | |||
Opinion about the training | Overall opinion about the training by trainer and participant | + | + | |
Opinion regarding number, duration and progress of the sessions by trainer and participant | + | + | ||
Opinion regarding comprehensibility of the training | + | |||
Opinion regarding number of extra sessions needed and whether the participant’s need for mobility support was met | + | + | ||
Burden experienced by participant | + | |||
Recommendation of the training to others | + | |||
Overall opinion about the trainer | + | + |
Data analysis
Results
Usefulness
Population reached
Characteristics of participants and trainers
General characteristics | Standardised training group | Regular training group |
p-value
| ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participants
| (n = 31) | (n = 37) | |||
mean age (SD) | 76.9 | (8.9) | 75.3 | (8.6) | 0.44 |
number female (%) | 19 | (61) | 22 | (60) | 0.88 |
level of education (%) | 0.15 | ||||
low | 12 | (39) | 16 | (43) | |
medium | 10 | (29) | 17 | (46) | |
high | 9 | (32) | 4 | (11) | |
number living alone (%) | 19 | (61) | 17 | (46) | 0.16 |
primary diagnosis (%) | 0.26 | ||||
macular degeneration | 17 | (55) | 26 | (70) | |
glaucoma | 5 | (16) | 2 | (5) | |
other | 10 | (32) | 7 | (19) | |
mean functional acuity score (range) | |||||
right | 0.15 | (0.00-0.70) | 0.19 | (0.03-0.80) | 0.32 |
left | 0.14 | (0.00-0.50) | 0.19 | (0.00-1.00) | 0.19 |
binocular | 0.21 | (0.03-0.60) | 0.22 | (0.03-1.00) | 0.74 |
Trainers
| (n = 12) | (n = 17) | |||
mean age (SD) | 39.0 | (12.1) | 33.9 | (8.9) | 0.20 |
number female (%) | 11 | (91) | 15 | (88) | 0.77 |
occupational therapists (%) | 9 | (75) | 15 | (88) | 0.37 |
mean years of experience (range) | 8.3 | (0–22) | 5.7 | (0–27) | 0.31 |
mean hours O&M-training per week (range) | 11.5 | (2–32) | 9.8 | (1–40) | 0.77 |
Response
Self-reported benefit or achievement
Trainers
Paticipants
Experienced barriers and potential solutions according to trainers
Regular training
Standardised training
Experienced barriers and solutions according to participants
Regular training
Standardised training
Acceptability
Performance according to protocol
Standardised training group | Regular training group |
p-value
| |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics of training | (n = 28) | (n = 37) | |||
number of sessions (%) | 0.01 | ||||
1 session | 6 | (21) | 23 | (62) | |
2 sessions | 4 | (14) | 6 | (16) | |
3 sessions | 17 | (61) | 6 | (16) | |
4 sessions | 1 | (4) | 0 | (0) | |
mean (min-max) duration (in min)* | |||||
session 1 | 94 | (5–135) | 70 | (10–120) | 0.07 |
session 2 | 95 | (20–100) | 60 | (5–105) | 0.08 |
session 3 | 20 | (5–90) | 54 | (15–90) | 0.16 |
Total | 209 | 184 | |||
mean (min-max) preparation time (in min) | |||||
session 1 | 25 | (5–60) | 17 | (0–60) | 0.87 |
session 2 | 12 | (0–30) | 15 | (0–30) | 0.76 |
session 3 | 9 | (0–15) | 16 | (0–30) | 0.01 |
Total | 46 | 47 | |||
format and location of sessions (number (%)) | |||||
session 1: face-to-face participants home | 25 | (89) | 33 | (89) | |
face-to-face low vision center | 0 | (0) | 2 | (5) | |
session 2: face-to-face participants home | 23 | (82) | 11 | (30) | |
face-to-face low vision center | 0 | (0) | 2 | (5) | |
by telephone | 0 | (0) | 2 | (5) | |
session 3: by telephone | 9 | (32) | 0 | (0) | |
face-to-face participants home | 9 | (32) | 6 | (16) |
Content protocol | Participants | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Elements of standardised training | Mean duration (in min)* | Performed | Partly performed | Not performed | Active participation | Partly participation | No participation | |||||||||
PRT | Qt | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | |||
Session 1 (n = 28) | 90 | 94 | ||||||||||||||
exploration of participant’s needs | 10 | 19 | 22 | (79) | 2 | (7) | 4 | (14) | 17 | (61) | 6 | (21) | 0 | (0) | ||
providing information | 10 | 13 | 20 | (71) | 3 | (11) | 5 | (18) | 17 | (61) | 5 | (18) | 0 | (0) | ||
formulating action plan | 15 | 15 | 15 | (54) | 5 | (18) | 7 | (25) | 10 | (36) | 6 | (21) | 3 | (11) | ||
performing action plan | 30 | 27 | 12 | (43) | 7 | (25) | 8 | (29) | 10 | (36) | 8 | (29) | 0 | (0) | ||
evaluation action plan | 10 | 10 | 10 | (36) | 8 | (29) | 9 | (32) | 10 | (36) | 4 | (14) | 2 | (7) | ||
Contracting | 15 | 10 | 8 | (29) | 4 | (14) | 15 | (54) | 2 | (7) | 5 | (18) | 2 | (7) | ||
Session 2 (n = 22) | 80 | 95 | ||||||||||||||
general and action plan evaluation | 15 | 18 | 7 | (25) | 7 | (25) | 5 | (18) | 9 | (32) | 2 | (7) | 0 | (0) | ||
formulating new action plan | 15 | 9 | 1 | (4) | 7 | (25) | 11 | (39) | 3 | (11) | 5 | (18) | 0 | (0) | ||
performing action plan session 1 | 20 | 31 | 4 | (14) | 4 | (14) | 11 | (39) | 3 | (11) | 4 | (14) | 0 | (0) | ||
performing new action plan | 20 | 25 | 3 | (11) | 5 | (18) | 10 | (36) | 4 | (14) | 4 | (14) | 0 | (0) | ||
evaluation and contracting | 10 | 12 | 9 | (32) | 4 | (14) | 3 | (11) | 8 | (29) | 2 | (7) | 0 | (0) | ||
Session 3 (n = 18) | 25 | 20 | ||||||||||||||
general evaluation | 15 | 13 | 9 | (32) | 7 | (25) | 1 | (4) | 13 | (46) | 2 | (7) | 0 | (0) | ||
Contracting | 10 | 7 | 7 | (25) | 1 | (4) | 7 | (25) | 7 | (25) | 0 | (0) | 0 | (0) |
Goals of the training | Participants (n = 28) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Achieved | Partly achieved | Not achieved | ||||
The participant… | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) |
has received information on the use of the ID cane | 17 | (61) | 4 | (14) | 1 | (4) |
was aware of the of the advantages of the ID cane | 12 | (43) | 9 | (32) | 1 | (4) |
was demonstrated the use of the ID cane | 18 | (64) | 2 | (7) | 2 | (7) |
experienced the use of the ID cane | 17 | (61) | 4 | (14) | 1 | (4) |
phrased his/her important activities related to mobility | 7 | (25) | 13 | (46) | 2 | (7) |
phrased how to perform activities safely and independently | 4 | (14) | 13 | (46) | 5 | (18) |
set goals regarding an action plan | 1 | (4) | 10 | (36) | 11 | (39) |
learned orientation skills | 3 | (11) | 10 | (36) | 5 | (18) |
learned mobility skills | 9 | (32) | 11 | (39) | 1 | (4) |
Participants’ exposure to and engagement in the training
Opinion about the training
Trainers
Standardised training group (n = 28) | Regular training group (n = 37) |
p-value
†
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Opinion regarding: | Trainer | Participant | Trainer | Participant | |||||||||
the overall training* | 6.1 | 8.3 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 0.02 | ||||||||
the trainer’s performance* | 7.6 | 8.6 | 7.5 | 8.3 | 0.24 | ||||||||
the participants’ engagement in the training* | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.4 | 7.4 | 0.15 | ||||||||
n
|
(%)
|
n
|
(%)
|
n
|
(%)
|
n
|
(%)
| ||||||
the number of sessions | |||||||||||||
(too) much | 10 | (36) | 2 | (7) | 1 | (3) | 0 | (0) | |||||
Good | 12 | (43) | 24 | (86) | 20 | (54) | 30 | (81) | |||||
(too) less | 3 | (11) | 1 | (4) | 13 | (35) | 0 | (0) | |||||
the need for extra sessions | 3 | (11) | 4 | (14) | 4 | (11) | 6 | (16) | |||||
the duration of the sessions
| |||||||||||||
(too) long | 4 | (14) | 5 | (18) | 1 | (3) | 0 | (0) | |||||
Good | 18 | (64) | 20 | (71) | 30 | (81) | 31 | (84) | |||||
(too) short | 2 | (7) | 2 | (7) | 3 | (8) | 2 | (5) | |||||
the progress of the training
| |||||||||||||
(very) easy | 10 | (36) | 25 | (89) | 21 | (57) | 31 | (84) | |||||
not easy/not difficult | 10 | (36) | 2 | (7) | 13 | (35) | 2 | (5) | |||||
(very) difficult | 5 | (18) | 0 | (0) | 0 | (0) | 0 | (0) | |||||
the extent to which the participant’s need for mobility support was met
| |||||||||||||
not satisfactory | 1 | (4) | 2 | (7) | 0 | (0) | 2 | (5) | |||||
partly satisfactory | 7 | (25) | 10 | (36) | 9 | (24) | 12 | (32) | |||||
Satisfactory | 17 | (61) | 14 | (50) | 25 | (68) | 20 | (54) |