The types of physical activities children with visual impairment participate in and the reasons why

Abstract

Australian children with visual impairment (VI) are underrepresented in studies exploring engagement in physical activities. Existing research documents that children with VI do not meet recommendations for physical activity guidelines which negatively impacts their physical and mental health. To improve participation, information is needed on what physical activities children with VI participate in and why. The objective of this study was to explore what physical activities children with VI participate in and why how they first got involved in them. A larger study was designed to explore multiple aspects of physical activity participation. This article presents findings relevant to what activities Western Australian children with VI participate in and factors which initiated participation. Findings were collected through a survey returned by 38 families and interviews with 22 families including parents and children with VI. School physical education, swimming, play equipment, and walking were the activities with the highest number of participants. Parent factors which motivated participation were having strong values/beliefs which supported engagement, modelling participation in activities, and seeking specific benefits/outcomes. Child factors which motivated participation included impact of their VI and the child’s choice/interest. External factors included advertisements and accessibility of information. Many Australian children with VI and their parents are motivated to engage in physical activities, with initial participation commonly catalysed by external factors.

Keywords

Disability engagement sports

Research consistently confirms that a high percentage of children with visual impairment (VI) do not meet World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines of 60 min of moderate-vigorous physical activity (Engel-Yeger & Hamed-Daher, 2013; Houwen et al., 2009; Kozub & Oh, 2004) daily (World Health Organization, 2010). Specifically, children with VI experience more barriers to engaging in physical activities when compared to their sighted peers (Kozub & Oh, 2004). This has significant lifelong consequences with studies linking decreased physical activity participation in people with VI to an increased likelihood of obesity and health-related problems (Haegele & Porretta, 2015; Houwen et al., 2009; Lieberman et al., 2010; Lieberman & McHugh, 2001; Wagner et al., 2013). In addition, reduced participation in physical activities particularly in early years of development forms a barrier to peer engagement and the development of important social skills.

Current research has focused on using both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the participation of children with VI in physical activities. This has included measuring interventions to improve physical activity participation (Columna, 2017; Columna, Lepore-Stevens, et al., 2017; Columna, Rocco Dillon, et al., 2017; da Cunha Furtado et al., 2015; Lieberman & Childs, 2020) and documenting barriers and facilitators to participation (Charles & Chinaza, 2018; Columna, Rocco Dillon, et al., 2017; Greguol et al., 2015; Gür et al., 2020; Jaarsma et al., 2014; Perkins et al., 2013; Stuart et al., 2006). These discussions are useful for improving the experiences of children with VI in physical activities; however, they do not assist parents, teachers, and therapists to understand what motivates children with VI to initially engage in physical activities. Some barrier’s children with VI experience can dissuade initiating participation such as parents concerns for safety, lack of knowledge of available activities and opportunities (Greguol et al., 2015; Perkins et al., 2013). Children with VI have also discussed concerns they had prior to participating, stating they would not know what to do, have anyone to play with, they would be made fun of, and there were no activities they could do (Stuart et al., 2006). Addressing these concerns has the potential to facilitate participation (Greguol et al., 2015; Stuart et al., 2006); however, it should also be noted that the barriers children with VI experience specifically related to social perceptions can be complex which require a coordinated, supportive approach and may not always be easily overcome. The complexities of social interactions and specifically the presence of a social hierarchy has been explored in youths with VI (Giese et al., 2021), finding that children with VI often experienced feelings of negativity perpetuated by their peers and teachers in physical education, not specifically due to the setting (physical education environment) but the fundamental social hierarchy present. Studies of parents suggest children with VI can be encouraged to participate in physical activities to address difficulties in motor skills, social skills, or personal feelings such as confidence and self-determination (Columna, Rocco Dillon, et al., 2017; Stuart et al., 2006).

The above-noted collection of research represents children with VI from various countries including the United States of America (Columna, Lepore-Stevens, et al., 2017; Columna, Rocco Dillon, et al., 2017; da Cunha Furtado et al., 2015; Kozub & Oh, 2004; Lieberman & Childs, 2020; Lieberman et al., 2010; Lieberman & McHugh, 2001; Perkins et al., 2013; Stuart et al., 2006; Wagner et al., 2013), Nigeria (Charles & Chinaza, 2018), Israel (Engel-Yeger & Hamed-Daher, 2013), Turkey (Gür et al., 2020), Italy (Greguol et al., 2015), and the Netherlands (Houwen et al., 2009). Given the dearth of research representing Australian children with VI, the current study was designed to explore the participation of Australian children with VI in physical activities. This article specifically focuses on identifying what activities children with VI participated in and what influenced their initial engagement.

Methodology

Ethical approval was obtained from the University Human Research Ethics Committee (13006). A survey was mailed out to all families on the School of Special Education Needs – Sensory Vision Education (SSEN-SVE) database and then e-mailed 8 weeks post initial mail out. The SSEN-SVE is a Western Australia-specific service through the Department of Education. The inclusion criteria for the study were the same as for inclusion on the SSEN-SVE database, that is, families with a child with a VI, aged between 3 years 6 months and 18 years (school aged), and live in Western Australia. Children on this database could also possibly have other related or unrelated disabilities, but still required the services of SSEN-SVE. When designing the study, consultation was undertaken with therapy and education providers of children with VI and as such the decision was made to include children with VI who also had additional disabilities to accurately represent the Western Australian population of children with VI.

The survey requested information on the child’s age, condition which caused their VI, identification of the activities the child with VI currently participated in, and the frequency/duration of participation. The survey also presented short answer questions:

What made you or your child choose the above activities? (Motivation)

What changes have you noticed in your child since beginning the activity(ies)? (Effects)

What has helped your child to participate in activities? (Facilitators)

What has made it difficult for your child to participate in activities? (Barriers)

Families could also choose to be involved in a follow-up semi-structured interview to explore their participation in physical activities. These interviews were completed 3–6 months post initial survey provision. Interviews were semi-structured and designed to gather information to answer the overarching questions ‘An exploration of Australian children with VI participation in physical activities’. A range of guiding topics were outlined including exploring the types of activities participated in and their experiences of participating including what initiated their participation. Each interview was individualized, and participants were encouraged to lead discussions allowing rich, qualitative data to be gathered on an array of aspects of participation.

This article presents the data collected through both the survey and interviews related to the following questions:

What physical activities do Western Australian children with VI participate in?

What factors influenced children with VI to initially participate in physical activities?

Data analysis

All surveys returned electronically or via mail were combined and analysed as a whole collection of data. Interviews were recorded and transcribed within 48 h of completion. This allowed future interviews to build on the data already collected while still allowing participants to direct conversations. Transcriptions were analysed using Clark and Braun’s methods of identifying patterns and themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Keywords included in the survey short answer questions were considered alongside key discussion points from the interview transcripts through which commonalities indicated the presence of three mains sources of motivators in the pre-engagement phase: parents, child, and external.

Results

Of the 317 families on the SSEN-SVE database, 38 families returned surveys (12% of families contacted), which represented 42 children with VI. Out of the 42 surveys each representing a child with VI, 35 were completed in their entirety including all short answer questions.

Of the 38 families who returned completed studies, 22 consented for a follow-up interview. In total 42 semi-structured interviews, including 20 interviews with one parent, 2 interviews with both parents, and 20 interviews with children with VI, were completed. There were three families who had multiple children with VI. Although best efforts were made to interview children, six were not interviewed due to no/limited verbal communication, unavailability, or very young age. Two families were interviewed over the phone as they lived in rural/remote settings.

Question 1: what physical activities do Western Australian children with VI participate in?

Table 1 presents the self-reported accounts of current participation in physical activities by children with VI collected through the survey. Children with VI participated in a range of physical activities, with 19 types of activities reported. Fifty-seven percent of the surveyed children with VI currently engaged in school physical education (n = 24/42), 43% currently engaged in swimming (n = 18/42), 33% regularly participated in play equipment (n = 14/42), and 33% regularly participated in walking (n = 13/42). However, the activities in which each individual spent the greatest average number of hours per week participating in were athletics (4.67 hr/wk; n = 3), play equipment (3.68 hr/wk; n = 14), goalball (3.67 hr/wk; n = 3), and netball (3 hr/wk; n = 2); however, many of these had low number of participant numbers (n).

Table 1.

Children with VI participation in physical activities, sorted in descending order regarding the total number of participants.

Activities	Total hours spent in this activity (combined total across all children VI participants)	Average time partaking activity per week (hours)/per child with VI	Total number of children with VI who participated in the activity/42	Average age of child with VI
School Phys Ed	45.5	1.90	24	10.29
Swimming	28.25	1.57	18	8.79
Play Equipment	51.5	3.68	14	7.16
Walking	32.14	2.14	14	9.70
Football (AFL)	14.5	2.42	6	9.25
Cycling	11.5	1.91	6	9.58
Dancing	9.75	1.75	6	7.94
Basketball	10	2.50	4	11.56
Surfing	4	1.06	4	11.13
Running	3.5	0.88	4	10.31
Athletics	14	4.67	3	11.75
Goalball	11	3.67	3	12.25
Martial Arts	5.75	1.92	3	8.83
Soccer	4.5	1.50	3	9.67
Horse Riding	4	1.33	3	10.5
Gymnastics	3	1.00	3	6.92
Netball	6	3.00	2	16.13
Rugby	4	2.00	2	14.13
Cricket	1.5	1.50	1	5.00

VI: visual impairment.

Question 2: what factors influenced children with VI’s initial engagement in physical activities?

In children with VI, engagement in physical activities was influenced by parents’ factors, child factors, and external influences.

Parent factors

Parents’ values and beliefs and what they hoped their children could gain out of participating in physical activities influenced their child’s engagement. Other noticeable parent factors were the modelling of physical active behaviours.

Values and beliefs

Parents discussed that a key motivator for engaging and choosing activities for their child was based on their own childhoods, ‘my husband and I are really sport[s] people and always played all sorts of things growing up so that’s . . . what we wanted for them too’. Many of the values and beliefs that parents held were not related to their child’s VI but were beliefs they held for all of their children. These core values and beliefs meant that, ‘sport it’s just something that we put up there’ and prioritize for all of their children. Parents also valued the social opportunities in physical activities, ‘I met a lot of my long-term friends through sport . . . so that’s kind of what we thought for him as well’. Participating in physical activities also allowed children to develop valuable life lessons, with a parent commenting:

with all the bad stuff happening nowadays, you got to keep kids in sport, keeps them out of trouble. It is my firm belief that in a club, good community with family and friends around you then hopefully that will alleviate any bad eggs and being influenced by bad eggs as well.

These beliefs continued across multiple families, with one parent noting:

. . . you learn to lose which is a big problem with current kids, they don’t know to fail which is my big thing, you have to learn to fail, you learn how to be part of a team, you learn your role in a team. Sport just gives them friendships, yeah it is just one of those things it just gives you so much.

Parents hoped that early engagement in activities would instill these values and beliefs in their children:

I think it is great to take direction from other people, great to be part of a team, actually being physical you know getting into that routine of being physical when you are young, I think helps you as you get older.

This was similarly noted by a parent from a different family:

. . . sport teaches you a lot of things. In a team environment it teaches you how to operate in a team, how to work with other people, how to manage those different personalities . . . it also teaches you how to lose, how to win gracefully, how to be a good sport. And it teaches you respect and commitment, you have to turn up to training, you have to turn up to the actual thing.

Although the parents’ values and beliefs were consistent for all of their children regardless of diagnosis of VI or not, many parents discussed seeking specific physical activities for their child with VI to assist them to overcome a limitation they experienced.

Desired outcomes

Parents often sought activities which they felt would be able to improve their child’s functioning in areas of perceived difficulties. Parents noted that due to their child’s VI they had less confidence, decreased general physical development, and more difficulties with social interactions. Most commonly, it was parents who had other children without VI who were particularly attentive to these differences and sought ways to help their child develop along the same path as their siblings: ‘I just wanted him to do it because I think I thought it might give him . . . you know . . . he wanted to be like his big brother . . . it might give him his self-confidence’. Multiple parents noted that due to their child’s VI they had difficulties with making friends and therefore sought physical activities as a way to increase social opportunities ‘it was mainly for the social side of things . . . because obviously he finds things a little bit more difficult making friends and things like that’ and ‘we did it as a sport that she could be involved in and also, at the time giving her social opportunities with people that were seeing similar struggles to those she was having’. Children with VI, whose parents reported the above findings, sought Goalball and judo to assist with social skills but also as the child was interested in those activities. The aspiration for their child to be confident and gain social opportunities was the most commonly desired outcome. Other desired outcomes included physical development, ‘I was actually originally thinking of for strength, and you know I was hoping she would like it too, but it was more the therapy side of it’. Parents could also encourage their children with VI to participate in activities by modelling participation.

Modelling

Parents who modelled participating in physical activities and maintaining a healthy lifestyle believed this was important in encouraging their child to participate. At times this was reflective of their participation in their younger years, we ‘also did athletics because his older brother and sister did it but again that’s because (DAD) and I did it I suppose, a lot of kids do what their parents do’. Other parents of younger children would note they would bring their children to watch their games, and encourage them to participate where possible, ‘we go and watch (DAD) so yeah, they enjoy it like being able to get out there and go out on the oval at quarter-time’. However, some parents found that the need to balance duties as a parent, employment and other activities meant they were not always able to sustain their engagement in physical activities. In these cases, some parents tried to maintain an active lifestyle:

we were always taking them to the beach and throwing balls to them and I mean, I just find that parents nowadays are so busy they don’t do some of the basics with kids, like go to the park and throw a ball with them, stuff, like it doesn’t have to be have to go to this class or have to go to dancing, and you got to go here and we were very big both (DAD) and I, in natural play, like go to the playground play, throw a ball, go down to the river and kayak, swim at the beach.

Modelling a physically active lifestyle reflected parents who valued being active and structured life to facilitate their child’s participation in physical activities. The presence of positive parent factors was noted as influential in not only what activities children participated in but also the attitude in which children approached their participation. When choosing physical activities, it was found that parents were attentive to their child’s interests and capacity to engage in physical activities.

Child factors

There are many factors within the child which influenced whether they engaged in physical activity and which activities were chosen. One of the strongest and most frequently discussed was choice.

Choice

Almost all parents considered their child’s interest and choices, when selecting physical activities for their child with VI. Swimming was the exception to this, with parents stating that ‘swimming is an important thing for us . . . it was a no-brainer . . . they started as babies swimming’ and ‘I just think that living in Australia swimming is important, it is a given’. When looking at other physical activities, the child’s choice was considered alongside the parent’s views. Older children discussed being able to exercise their choice through school sport electives, access to extra-curricular activities (through school), or independently access community areas such as local parks and teams. The interplay between parents’ factors and child’s choice is demonstrated through parents noting ‘we have a strong desire to get him into sport, but it has to be a personal decision’, and other parents stating, ‘I mean I give them their choice and I know what I would prefer them to do but it is up to them’. By considering their child’s choice parents noted reduced resistance to participating in physical activities: ‘I wanted him to be physical and he likes that, and he enjoys that, and he likes to be social . . . and I like to put him in things with his friends’ and ‘just wanted to get them into something . . . they (children with VI) go for anything that interests them’. Children’s interest and therefore choice was commonly linked to social factors. Children with VI often chose activities that their siblings or friends were doing, ‘my brother and sister just did it, so I thought I tried it and it was really fun’, and ‘I first picked soccer because . . . heaps of my friends were doing it’. Parents corroborated this view noting that their child chose activities, ‘because his brother and sister did it and he would come and watch so he just wanted to do it’. This desire for social connections was valuable in facilitating ongoing engagement. Findings showed that when children were younger, parents would seek out activities that ‘l think they might be interested in and go with that’. Parents of younger children noted that sometimes they felt the child’s choice was not possible due to other factors such as routine ‘they just get exhausted by the end of the week’, and practicality ‘we steered him away from that . . . it just didn’t seem like a safe idea’. This could be viewed as an ‘ableist’ view with parents enforcing their beliefs about their child’s capacities and influencing engagement in activities even before the child had attempted the activity. However, as children got older and their choices were perhaps more reflective of practical activities, choice was more of a deciding factor. The variation in the role of ‘choice’ is perhaps due to the presence of the VI itself. Parents noted that younger children did not always have an accurate understanding of their visual limitations and some parents felt this led them to choices which were not consistent with positive early experiences, ‘she would get frustrated you know in herself . . . because she couldn’t find them because she couldn’t see them in the water so that was . . . the reasons I took her out of that swimming’.

Disability

Both children and parents noted that the presence of VI and on occasion other co-occurring disabilities heavily influenced their choice of activities. Depending on the cause of VI, the impact on choice varied. For example, VI caused by conditions such as albinism, cataract removal, or bilateral colobomas meant parents often guided children towards indoor activities or environments conducive to reduced glare, ‘I can see swimming is an easier sport for them because there is less vision involved’, and ‘I do get worried about the vision stuff like with the cycling and stuff’. Parents also noted that VI which caused difficulties with tracking movements meant they guided children towards activities which did not involve small balls or fast-moving people or objects ‘there are certain sports like anything with a fast-moving ball is probably something that she is not going to be successful at’. This was repeated with other parents stating, ‘we sort of steered him away from that (cricket) . . . you know because of the small ball’. There were also safety considerations noted for children whose VI meant an increased risk of physical injury, such as those with a diagnosis of X-linked Juvenile Retinoschisis, or Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome (HPS). This reduced engagement in ‘contact’ activities such as rugby or football, with parents noting ‘we have to be very careful with him because it is contact and with his head . . . we will have to quit at the end of this year because it is getting too dangerous’, and ‘because with HPS there is problems with bleed outs in the lower intestines . . . it’s quite dangerous . . . so they have stopped doing that’. These concerns regarding safety were at times strong enough to override the parents’ motivators and the child’s choice. One parent guided their child to dance for this reason; ‘because it is just a matter of remembering the routine and she has a very good memory, and the choice is well suited to her ability and her skill set’. Parents also guided their children to activities where they felt their child was more likely to succeed ‘I try to get him into things where he would only be competing against things like his own time, like the running and cycling’. Older children with VI considered their own vision limitations when making their choices, noting: ‘I have other opportunities like athletics and swimming where I don’t have to worry about things hitting my face’ and ‘sometimes because if you can’t see it (ball) . . . so that is why I like doing dancing and swimming because there is no ball’. However, parents of younger children with VI commonly noted their child had asked for activities they did not feel were suitable; ‘except that SON VI wants to do tennis which I am bit opposed to just with the vision’ and ‘hand-eye coordination is not his strong point in any way and to be honest I can’t think of a worse spot than tennis’. As previously commented, the parents’ perceptions of the child’s capacities could represent an ‘ableist’ view, in which parents reduced opportunities based on their perspective of the child.

Some parents noted limitations outside of their child’s vision which influenced whether their child engaged in particular physical activities. Children experienced a range of co-occurring disabilities from related conditions to the VI including cortical VI as a result of acquired brain injury, congenital toxoplasmosis, and ataxia telangiectasia and unrelated disabilities such as learning difficulties, autism, renal disease, osteopenia, seizures, global developmental delay, and cerebral palsy. When discussing the biggest barrier to commencing physical activities one parent commented: ‘his behaviour, definitely his behaviour’ which was primarily due to a co-occurring diagnosis of Autism. Co-occurring disabilities which impacted physical development such as Developmental Coordination Disorder could also influence choice: ‘you know he had very poor balance and spatial awareness’. Some children were heavily influenced by limitations outside of their VI, however for others it did not significantly influence their participation. The degree of influence was closely related to whether the child was potentially at risk of injury as a result of their difficulties (vision or other). Families revealed a pattern where risks to safety overrode the child’s choice, and parents’ values and beliefs. However, in cases where the VI and/or co-occurring disability did not indicate a significant physical risk, then the child was still able participate. Parents were able to overcome their fear of perceived minor risk of injury to provide their child with the opportunities and experiences they could get from engagement; ‘when he came home and said he wanted to do tennis, it was like ok how are we going to make tennis work’. Outside of the child and parents’ factors, there was commonly an external factor which assisted the children with VI getting involved in a physical activity.

External factors

When parents valued physical activity and their child was positively indicated to participate the next step was to find a suitable activity. Some parents noted they had been able to find local clubs through Internet searches and usually a follow-up phone call: ‘I found it on a website’ and ‘on the internet yeah that’s the big thing, so we just found something close by’. However, multiple parents discussed not knowing where to look to find suitable activities: ‘we have never known who to ring and ask’ or ‘I don’t know of what disability sports are around here’ and ‘I guess just one thing for us, is just we don’t even know what services and sports are available for disabled kids’. Parents of children who were totally blind, or also had co-occurring disabilities more often noted difficulties finding suitable activities: ‘you know he is the only one with his combination of conditions’, and ‘but there is nothing geared towards him . . . he sort of gets lost in the middle’.

Advertising was the most common method of distributing information on available activities. Two children with VI commenced activities after receiving letter box leaflets, ‘my mum saw like a little flyer in the letterbox, and she thought it looked like something that would be fun’ and ‘so it was simply a flyer in the letterbox . . . so I thought we would try it and she liked it’. Others received information from adult mentors of the activity attending schools, therapists having firsthand knowledge of specific activities, and public advertising of ‘have-a-go’ days, ‘they said anyone with a disability come down to have a go day’. Many parents also valued the opportunity for their child to try an activity before making a commitment, ‘it was come and try 2 lessons for free and I thought well that sounds like a bargain . . . that worked out to be the most expensive two free lessons I have had in my life’. This was particularly important when the child had chosen an activity, the parents were sceptical of.

Discussion

This article found that in children with VI initial engagement in physical activities was heavily influenced by parents’ values/beliefs, desired outcomes, and their own participation in physical activities. Alongside this, initial participation was influenced by the child’s choice, skills, and capacity to engage safely in physical activities. Successful participation then required the sourcing of a suitable activity. This study is the first to report this seemingly consistent interaction of factors required for successful initiation of participation in physical activities. However, aspects of this relationship have been explored in other studies.

Studies which have explored motivators to participation confirm that parents who valued being physically active and desired their child to learn important life lessons motivates participation (Perkins et al., 2013), self-confidence, and self-determination (Columna, Rocco Dillon, et al., 2017). The use of modelling physically active behaviours and active lifestyles has been similarly supported through another study of parents of children with VI (Columna, Rocco Dillon, et al., 2017). On the contrary, the discussion of child factors on initiating physical activities presents a new view with which to view choice and the role of VI.

Other studies have documented how children with VI chose not to participate in activities due to fears of being made fun of, not having people to participate with, or being unsure of what to do (Stuart et al., 2006). These views were not reported in this study, with parents often reflecting how their child positively chose to participate in activities with their friends. This difference could be due to the sample size included in this study being swayed towards those who participate in physical activities. Another possible reason for the differing views may be the perspective with which the topic was approached. Existing research has often been aimed at exploring barriers and facilitators to participation in which children and parents reflected on factors which made it easier or more difficult to participate (Stuart et al., 2006). The findings from this study were guided from open questions such as ‘why did CHILD VI participate in SELECTED ACTIVITY’. This view adds valuable information to gaining an understanding of what could facilitate successful initiation in physical activity participation.

This study is one of the first to document how child’s choice influenced initial engagement in physical activities. Encouragingly many parents discussed that even if they had misgivings about an activity, if their child was motivated to participate, and there was not a significant risk of injury, they would make it work. Choice has been implied in previous studies, exploring how participation could be improved through developing children’s self-advocacy and capacity to overcome barriers (Lieberman & Childs, 2020).

Existing studies have often reported that VI heavily influenced the individual’s initiation in physical activities (Jaarsma et al., 2014) whereas the participant group for this study did not discuss it as commonly. This study included children with varying degrees of VI and only a low number of legally blind individuals. This perhaps accounts for the reduced frequency of which VI was noted as a limiting factor. Parents and children with VI discussed vision as a minor obstacle which they were able to overcome with simple adjustments. There were families in both this study and previous studies which concur that participation was often inhibited due to concerns for safety due to VI (Perkins et al., 2013). Children with VI have discussed that their vision meant they were not confident to participate in some activities (Stuart et al., 2006). Within this study, it was only older children with VI who noted similar concerns, stating they often chose activities which they felt they could participate in despite their VI. Given the level of insight that older children develop and their capacity to understand their visual limitations, this is understandable. In the current study, VI was only a significant barrier when there was a significant risk of injury to the child with VI. This supports existing beliefs that parents were often concerned about their child’s safety in physical activities (Greguol et al., 2015).

This is the first study based in Australia which specifically comments on the factors which influenced initial participation in physical activities. Where many studies have explored barriers and facilitators to engagement, this article presents findings which relate to the participation of children with VI in physical activities. Additional papers will present information on the barriers and facilitators to ongoing participation. However, this study is one of the first to document that initial engagement in physical activities was most heavily influenced by their parents, the child’s choice, skills, and external factors including receiving advertisement material or specific information regarding a physical activity. This supports findings from existing research in which a barrier to engagement was a lack of knowledge on activities and opportunities for engagement (Greguol et al., 2015). This is valuable information which can inform health promotion practices to encourage children with VI to participate in physical activities.

The findings within this study include potential limitations such as a heavy representation of the views of parents of children with VI. As stated within the findings, children with VI initial participation in physical activities was heavily influenced by factors which children with VI may not be aware of, including parents making enquiries, seeking opportunities, and responding to comments made by the child. Therefore, parents often commented more often on factors which influenced early participation, whereas the child with VI focused more on the experiences of participating which are presented in other publications. In addition, research suggests that participants who have an interest in a topic are more likely to opt in for inclusion in research studies. Within this study most children with VI actively participated in physical activities; however, there were two children with VI included in the sample who did not participate in any physical activities. Therefore, although the views of individuals who have experienced significant barriers to participation are included, there is still the potential that findings are influenced due to participant inclusion bias.

Conclusion

This study presents valuable information regarding the participation of children with VI in physical activities. Most notably was the finding that successful initiation in physical activities relied on a positive interaction of parent factors, child factors, and receipt of information regarding suitable activities. It should also be noted that addressing barriers to participation is complex, and while the above summarizes what influenced the participation of the included children with VI, there can still be the potential that additional barriers may be experienced which require varied assistance to overcome. These findings provide valuable information which therapists and parents can use to support children with VI to more efficiently initiate engagement in physical activities. This is general advice, based on the views and experiences of a group of Western Australian children with VI and their parents. Due to the small sample size, generalizability to other populations of children with VI is limited. In addition, although the findings from this study report some similarities between the experiences of children with VI, it also indicated that each child’s experience is individual. The degree to which the parents, child, and external factors influenced participation varied, with some children relying heavily on parental support and having little interest or desire to choose specific activities, and other children self-motivating their participation in physical activities despite parents not desiring or valuing the specific activity the child chose.

Further research is needed to explore other aspects of participation of Australian children with VI in physical activities, including documenting the ways to facilitate ongoing participation and assessing/testing whether positive interactions of parent, child, and external factors is sufficient to initiate engagement in physical activities.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Talitha Clements

Jodie Cochrane Wilkie

References

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Charles

O. O.

Chinaza

N. K.

(2018). Barriers and facilitators of physical activity participation among youth with visual and hearing impairments in Nigeria: A qualitative study. Palaestra, 32(3), 21–27.

Columna

(2017). Syracuse University fit families program: Physical activity program for families of children with visual impairments. Palaestra, 31(1), 32–39.

Columna

Lepore-Stevens

Kavanagh

E. L. W. K. D

. (2017). Effective education for families of children with visual impairments and blindness in physical activity environments: A workshop model with a focus on orientation and mobility skills. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 35(2), 165–177.

Columna

Rocco Dillon

Norris

M. L.

Dolphin

McCabe

(2017). Parents’ perceptions of physical activity experiences for their families and children with visual impairments. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 35(2), 88–102.

da Cunha Furtado

O. L. P.

Allums-Featherston

Lieberman

L. J.

Gutierrez

G. L

. (2015). Physical activity interventions for children and youth with visual impairments. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(2), 156–176.

Engel-Yeger

Hamed-Daher

(2013). Comparing participation in out of school activities between children with visual impairments, children with hearing impairments and typical peers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(10), 3124–3132.

Giese

Ruin

Baumgärtner

Haegele

J. A.

(2021). ‘. . . and after that came me’ – Subjective constructions of social hierarchy in physical education classes among youth with visual impairments in Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), Article 10946. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010946

Greguol

Gobbi

Carraro

(2015). Physical activity practice among children and adolescents with visual impairment – Influence of parental support and perceived barriers. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(4), 327–330.

10.

Gür

Beyhan

Aktan

Akbulut

Sezer

Çelik

Ş.

Çakıcı

(2020). Physical activity levels, enjoyment, and perceptions of barriers to physical activity of adolescents with visual impairments in Turkey. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 114(6), 502–515.

11.

Haegele

J. A.

Porretta

(2015). Physical activity and school-age individuals with visual impairments: A literature review. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(1), 68–82.

12.

Houwen

Hartman

Visscher

(2009). Physical activity and motor skills in children with and without visual impairments. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41(1), 103–109.

13.

Jaarsma

E. A.

Dekker

Koopmans

S. A.

Dijkstra

P. U.

Geertzen

J. H.

(2014). Barriers to and facilitators of sports participation in people with visual impairments. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 31(3), 240–264.

14.

Kozub

F. M.

(2004). An exploratory study of physical activity levels in children and adolescents with visual impairments. Clinical Kinesiology, 58(3), 1–7.

15.

Lieberman

L. J.

Byrne

Mattern

C. O.

Watt

C. A.

Fernández-Vivó

(2010). Health-related fitness of youths with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(6), 349–359.

16.

Lieberman

L. J.

Childs

(2020). Steps to success: A sport-focused self-advocacy program for children with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 114(6), 531–537.

17.

Lieberman

L. J.

McHugh

(2001). Health-related fitness of children who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95(5), 272–287.

18.

Perkins

Columna

Lieberman

Bailey

(2013). Parents’ perceptions of physical activity for their children with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 107(2), 131–142.

19.

Stuart

M. E.

Lieberman

Hand

K. E.

(2006). Beliefs about physical activity among children who are visually impaired and their parents. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(4), 223–234.

20.

Wagner

M. O.

Haibach

P. S.

Lieberman

L. J.

(2013). Gross motor skill performance in children with and without visual impairments – Research to practice. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(10), 3246–3252.

21.

World Health Organization. (2010). Global recommendations on physical activity for health.