Improving social participation of adolescents with a visual impairment with community-based mentoring: results from a randomized controlled trial

Figures & data

Table 1. Baseline characteristics.

	Mentoring condition^a (N = 51)	Care-as-usual group (N = 25)	Total (N = 76)	Difference statistics
Age	18.33 (2.06)	18.68 (1.93)	18.45 (2.00)	F = 0.50, p = 0.48
Gender				χ^2 = 0.06, p = 0.80
Male	47%	44%	46%
Female	53%	56%	54%
Onset				χ^2= 0.96, p = 0.09
Birth	67%	76%	70%
Post-natal	33%	24%	30%
Severity impairment				χ^2 = 3.07, p = 0.22
Blind	22%	36%	27%
Severe	37%	24%	33%
Moderate	41%	40%	40%
Prognosis				χ^2 = 0.55, p = 0.46
Stable	51%	60%	54%
Progressive	49%	40%	46%
Inherited condition				χ^2 = 0.33, p = 0.57
Yes	51%	44%	49%
No	49%	56%	51%
Comorbidity				χ^2 = 0.01, p = 0.93
Yes	49%	48%	49%
No	51%	52%	51%
Special education				χ^2 = 0.40, p = 0.53
Always mainstream	35%	28%	33%
Ever special	65%	72%	67%

^a Mentoring condition consists of both the visual impairment mentor group and no-visual impairment mentor group.

Figure 1. Participant flow through study. *Longitudinal analyses include all available data from each subject up to withdrawal or study completion.

Table 2. Mean score and standard deviations of social participation outcome variables of both conditions, at the first assessment (T1), after 12 months at the second assessment (T2), and after 18 months at the third assessment (T3).

	Intervention condition^a			Care-as-usual group
	M	SD	N	M	SD	N
Participation VAP scale
T1 (range 0–10)	7.94	1.25	51	8.16	1.05	25
T2 (range 0–10)	7.79	1.61	49	8.39	1.11	19
T3 (range 0–10)	7.82	1.53	47	8.27	1.14	19
Social participation composite score
T1 (range 0–12)	4.16	1.75	51	4.36	2.16	25
T2 (range 0–12)	4.63	1.74	49	5.32	1.92	19
T3 (range 0–12)	4.30	1.94	47	5.11	1.85	19
Degree of peer activity
T1 (range 1–6)	2.24	0.71	51	2.14	0.76	25
T2 (range 1–6)	2.51	0.86	49	2.56	0.88	19
T3 (range 1–6)	2.42	0.76	47	2.66	0.71	19
Social network size
T1	23.61	15.59	51	24.36	15.60	25
T2	26.71	16.80	49	23.79	16.12	19
T3	22.26	14.17	47	19.37	10.54	19
Perceived peer support
T1 (range 30–300)	211.18	69.30	51	222.00	55.60	25
T2 (range 30–300)	214.90	57.49	49	220.00	61.91	19
T3 (range 30–300)	210.64	65.82	47	200.00	68.56	19
Perceived parent support
T1 (range 30–300)	220.98	68.74	51	230.80	49.99	25
T2 (range 30–300)	227.35	64.74	49	244.74	42.48	19
T3 (range 30–300)	212.98	74.74	47	219.47	72.69	19
Perceived online social support
T1 (range 1–5)	2.73	0.92	49	3.01	0.87	24
T2 (range 1–5)	2.75	1.04	47	3.13	1.23	18
T3 (range 1–5)	2.89	1.06	45	3.37	0.86	19
Satisfaction with social support
T1 (range 1–5)	3.57	0.66	51	3.54	0.73	25
T2 (range 1–5)	3.84	0.73	49	3.74	0.77	19
T3 (range 1–5)	3.84	0.67	47	3.61	0.64	19

M: mean; SD: standard deviation; N: number; VAP: visual activity and participation.

^a Mentoring condition consists of both the visual impairment mentor group and no-visual impairment mentor group.

Table 3. Parameter estimates for multilevel model of effectiveness of the mentoring intervention on social participation outcome variables.

	Growth model				Mentoring condition vs. care-as-usual group				VI mentor group vs. no-VI mentor group
	B	SE	95% CI	d	B	SE	95% CI	d	B	SE	95% CI	d
Participation VAP scale	–0.04	0.08	–0.19, 0.15	0.08	0.01	0.13	–0.30, 0.21	0.01	0.08	0.22	–0.33, 0.56	0.10
Social participation composite score	0.15	0.12	–0.10, 0.41	0.32	–0.24	0.26	–0.79, 0.23	0.24	0.05	0.34	–0.60, 0.77	0.04
Degree peer activity	0.13	0.05	0.05, 0.23	0.60	–0.13	0.09	–0.32, 0.03	0.27	–0.03	0.13	–0.27, 0.24	0.06
Social network size	–1.33	0.96	–2.93, 0.79	0.30	2.28	1.95	–1.42, 6.39	0.24	0.75	2.77	–3.80, 7.20	0.07
Perceived peer support	–3.19	4.07	–10.72, 4.61	0.17	8.62	7.64	–7.32, 23.01	0.21	13.61	10.92	–8.21, 35.22	0.33
Perceived parent support	–5.52	3.98	–13.31, 2.77	0.35	1.78	7.96	–14.44, 16.86	0.05	–3.02	11.78	–25.90. 20.22	0.08
Online social support	0.11	0.07	–0.02, 0.24	0.44	–0.07	0.14	–0.35, 0.21	0.12	0.02	0.17	–0.35, 0.34	0.03
Satisfaction with social support	0.15	0.05	0.06. 0.26	0.56	0.18	0.11	–0.5, 0.39	0.14	0.23	0.12	0.02, 0.49	0.38

B: beta; SE: standard error; CI: confidence intervals; d: Cohen’s d; VAP: visual activity and participation.

Figure 2. Standardized satisfaction with social support scores on three time points.