Project description:BackgroundLow vision affects over 300 million people worldwide and can compromise both activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitative training and vision assistive equipment (VAE) may help, but some visually impaired people have limited resources to attend in-person visits at rehabilitation clinics to receive training to learn to use VAE. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through remote, Internet-based consultation (i.e. telerehabilitation).ObjectivesTo compare the effects of telerehabilitation with face-to-face (e.g. in-office or inpatient) vision rehabilitation services for improving vision-related quality of life and near reading ability in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives were to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for VAE devices, and patient satisfaction ratings.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any language restriction or study design filter in the electronic searches; however, we restricted the searches from 1980 onwards because the Internet was not introduced to the public until 1982. We last searched the electronic databases on 24 June 2019.Selection criteriaWe planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants diagnosed with low vision were undergoing low vision rehabilitation using an Internet, web-based technology compared with an approach involving in-person consultations.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and then full-text articles against the eligibility criteria. We planned to have two review authors independently abstract data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion.Main resultsWe identified two ongoing studies, but did not find any completed RCTs and CCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review. We did not conduct a quantitative analysis. We discussed review articles on telemedicine for facilitating communication with elderly individuals or for providing remote ophthalmological care.Authors' conclusionsWe did not find any evidence from RCTs or CCTs on the efficacy of using telerehabilitation for remote delivery of rehabilitation services to individuals with low vision. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, the two ongoing studies, when completed, may provide evidence in understanding the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.

Project description:ObjectiveTelerehabilitation for individuals with vision impairment aims to maintain maximum physical and/or psychological functioning through remote service delivery. This review aims to describe the type of telerehabilitation services available to people with vision impairment and summarise evidence on health-related outcomes, well-being and cost-effectiveness.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesCINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsychINFO, Embase, PubMed, HMIC and Ovid Emcare were searched, without date restrictions up to 24 May 2021. Charity and government websites, conference proceedings and clinical trial databases were also examined.Eligibility criteriaEligible studies evaluated benefits of telerehabilitation services for adults with vision impairment. Studies were excluded if they were not available in English, or focused on distance learning of visually impaired students.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened articles and extracted data. A risk of bias analysis was performed.Outcome measuresMeasures of benefit included performance-based assessment, patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness.ResultsOf 4472 articles, 10 eligible studies were included. Outcomes addressed patient satisfaction (n=4;33.3%), quality-of-life, activities of daily living and well-being (n=4;33.3%), objective visual function (n=2;16.6%) and knowledge relating to ocular symptoms (n=1;8.3%). Two studies addressed multiple outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was addressed in one article (8.3%). Patients were generally satisfied with their experiences, which had a range of positive benefits on functional and quality-of-life outcomes in areas relating to daily activities (eg, reading, making phone calls). Telerehabilitation allowed patients to undertake vision optimisation training to prevent vision deterioration. Grey literature indicated that there are no completed clinical trials relating to low vision telerehabilitation. Charity services had implemented digital skills training to help beneficiaries communicate remotely.ConclusionWhile acceptability of telerehabilitation was mostly high, limited real-world data are available which raises questions around the long-term desirability of this approach. Further trials are needed to evaluate telerehabilitation using a robust set of outcome measures.Prospero registration numberCRD42021254825.

Project description:SignificanceA recent trend in low vision rehabilitation has been the use of portable head-mounted displays to enhance residual vision. Our study confirms the feasibility of telerehabilitation and informs the development of evidence-based recommendations to improve telerehabilitation interventions to reduce device abandonment.PurposeTo develop evidence-based recommendations for telerehabilitation, we conducted a feasibility study in preparation for a future randomized trial on the use of head-mounted displays.MethodsWe recruited novice eSight Eyewear users, randomized 1:1: the experimental group received telerehabilitation by a low vision therapist using video conferencing; the control group completed at home self-training provided by the device manufacturer. The primary feasibility outcomes were whether the recruitment goal of 60 participants (30/group) was attainable within 1 year and how participants judged the accessibility and acceptability of the telerehabilitation. An exploratory outcome was the impact of telerehabilitation on eSight Eyewear use behavior.ResultsAmong 333 eSight users, 57 participants were enrolled, of which 35% withdrew from the study, whereas the remainder completed the 6-month follow-up. The withdrawal rate was higher in the control group but did not differ significantly from the experimental group. High accessibility (93% of participants accessed the platform) and global acceptability (100% overall satisfaction) were reported among those who completed the telerehabilitation protocol. The therapist had no difficulty judging the participants' reading performances qualitatively while participants used their device to read their eSkills and VisExc guides. Most participants improved their daily activities, based on qualitative reports of the attained goals. Seventy-nine percent of individuals declined to participate, whereas 16% of participants decided not to use eSight Eyewear anymore.ConclusionsThe data demonstrated the feasibility of a randomized controlled telerehabilitation study for people with low vision using a head-mounted display. Positive feedback from the participants and the therapist suggests the potential value of this modality for low vision services.

Project description:SignificanceThis pilot study provides some insight about the potential benefits of telerehabilitation training to improve the reading ability of adults with low vision using magnifiers, to spur future work with larger groups. Telerehabilitation services can be implemented clinically to facilitate access to follow-up care for low vision.PurposeA recent Cochrane systematic review revealed that there are no published visual function outcomes for telerehabilitation with handheld magnification devices for low vision; thus, this study aimed to provide evidence for its preliminary efficacy.MethodsOne to 4 months after receiving a new magnification device (i.e., handheld or stand optical magnifier or portable electronic magnifier), 14 adult low vision patients (with any visual acuity level or ocular diagnosis) received two training sessions at home via telerehabilitation with their vision rehabilitation provider located remotely in-office. Telerehabilitation included a loaner smartphone for Zoom videoconferencing with remote control access software. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test was administered during each of the telerehabilitation sessions to assess near reading (acuity and speed) with the new magnifier.ResultsMean reading acuity with the magnifier was 0.17 logMAR across subjects before training at telerehabilitation session 1, which significantly improved to 0.09 on average a few weeks later at telerehabilitation session 2 (95%confidence interval, -0.001 to -0.16; P = .047). Logarithm reading speed with the magnifier for the reading acuity level at session 1 improved significantly by 0.18 log words per minute on average for the same text size at session 2 (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.29; P = .002). With the magnifier at session 2, 71% of participants gained at least 0.1 log unit in reading acuity, and half improved by >0.01 in log reading speed; all participants with increased reading speed also improved in reading acuity ( P = .02).ConclusionsThese preliminary data support that telerehabilitation can enhance reading ability and efficiency with newly prescribed magnifiers as an alternative option to in-office vision rehabilitation.

Project description:PurposeAn evidence basis is lacking but needed to compare reading ability outcomes after magnification device training remotely via telerehabilitation versus in office.MethodsA multicenter randomized controlled trial at academic centers and vision rehabilitation private practices randomized 61 visually impaired adults to telerehabilitation or in-office training 1 to 4 months after dispensing new portable electronic, hand-held, or stand optical magnifiers. Telerehabilitation included loaner equipment for Zoom videoconferencing with remote control access software. Using a multilevel regression model, changes in Activity Inventory responses using Rasch analysis estimated reading ability in dimensionless log odds units (logits) (0.14-logit change corresponds with ability change expected from a one-line change in visual acuity).ResultsAcross 47 participants who completed the trial, reading ability with new magnifiers improved significantly by 0.61 logits on average (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.86; P < 0.001) from baseline to 1 month, and by an additional 0.44 logits on average (95% CI, 0.19-0.69; P < 0.001) from 1 to 4months (i.e., after magnifier training), with very similar significant findings for both telerehabilitation (n = 29; mean improvement = 0.44 logits; 95% CI, 0.08-0.80; P = 0.018) and in-office training (n = 18; mean improvement = 0.43 logits; 95% CI, 0.15-0.71; P = .003), and no significant difference between randomized groups across both follow-ups (95% CI, -0.43 to 0.61; P = .73). Vision, demographics, and health factors were nonsignificantly related to reading ability changes from 1 to 4 months.ConclusionsReading ability improved after the provision of newly dispensed magnifiers, with further improvements following additional magnifier training via either telerehabilitation or in-office usual care.Translational relevanceThese findings provide support for the use of telerehabilitation to enhance reading ability with newly prescribed magnifiers as an alternative modality of care delivery.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to examine associations between frequency of telerehabilitation (TR) and outcomes of functional status (FS), number of visits, and patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and to compare FS outcomes by TR delivery mode for individuals with low back pain.MethodsPropensity score matching was used to match episodes of care with or without TR exposure by the probability of receiving TR. FS, visits, and satisfaction were compared for individuals without TR and those who received care by TR for "any," "few," "most," or "all" frequencies (4 matched samples), and FS was compared for individuals receiving synchronous, asynchronous, and mixed TR modes (3 matched samples). Standardized differences were used to compare samples before and after matching. Outcomes between matched samples were compared using z tests with 95% CI.ResultsThe sample consisted of 91,117 episodes of care from 1398 clinics located in 46 states (58% women; mean age = 55 [SD = 18]). Of those, only 5013 episodes (5.5%) involved any amount of TR. All standardized differences between matched samples were <0.1. There was no significant difference in FS points (range = 0-100, with higher representing better FS) between matched samples, except for episodes that had ``few'' (-1.7) and ``all'' (+2.0) TR frequencies or that involved the asynchronous (-2.6) TR mode. These point differences suggest limited clinical importance. Episodes with any TR frequency involved significantly fewer visits (0.7-1.3) than episodes with no TR, except that those with the "most" TR frequency had non-significantly fewer visits (0.6). A smaller proportion of individuals with TR (-4.0% to -5.0%) than of individuals with no telerehabilitation reported being very satisfied with treatment results, except for those with the "all" TR frequency.ConclusionsA positive association between TR and rehabilitation outcomes was observed, with a trend for better FS outcomes and fewer visits when all care was delivered through TR. Satisfaction tended to be lower with TR use. Overall, this observational study showed that for people with low back pain, physical therapy delivered through TR was equally effective as and more efficient than in-person care, with a trend of higher effectiveness when used for all visits during the episode of care. No differences in FS outcomes were observed between care delivered with synchronous and mixed TR delivery modes and care delivered with no TR. However, the asynchronous mode of TR was associated with worse functional outcomes than no TR. Although the majority of people were very satisfied with their treatment results with and without TR, very high satisfaction rates were reported by a slightly smaller proportion of individuals with TR versus those without TR. Our results suggest that TR is a viable option for rehabilitation care for individuals with low back pain and should also be considered in the post-COVID-19 era.

Project description:BackgroundPersonal health technologies, including wearable tracking devices and mobile apps, have great potential to equip the general population with the ability to monitor and manage their health. However, being designed for sighted people, much of their functionality is largely inaccessible to the blind and low-vision (BLV) population, threatening the equitable access to personal health data (PHD) and health care services.ObjectiveThis study aims to understand why and how BLV people collect and use their PHD and the obstacles they face in doing so. Such knowledge can inform accessibility researchers and technology companies of the unique self-tracking needs and accessibility challenges that BLV people experience.MethodsWe conducted a web-based and phone survey with 156 BLV people. We reported on quantitative and qualitative findings regarding their PHD tracking practices, needs, accessibility barriers, and work-arounds.ResultsBLV respondents had strong desires and needs to track PHD, and many of them were already tracking their data despite many hurdles. Popular tracking items (ie, exercise, weight, sleep, and food) and the reasons for tracking were similar to those of sighted people. BLV people, however, face many accessibility challenges throughout all phases of self-tracking, from identifying tracking tools to reviewing data. The main barriers our respondents experienced included suboptimal tracking experiences and insufficient benefits against the extended burden for BLV people.ConclusionsWe reported the findings that contribute to an in-depth understanding of BLV people's motivations for PHD tracking, tracking practices, challenges, and work-arounds. Our findings suggest that various accessibility challenges hinder BLV individuals from effectively gaining the benefits of self-tracking technologies. On the basis of the findings, we discussed design opportunities and research areas to focus on making PHD tracking technologies accessible for all, including BLV people.

Project description:BackgroundTelerehabilitation can facilitate multidisciplinary management for people with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP). It provides health care access to individuals who are physically and economically disadvantaged.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared with a clinic-based intervention for people with NCLBP in Nigeria.MethodsA cost-utility analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial from a health care perspective was conducted. Patients with NCLBP were assigned to either telerehabilitation-based McKenzie therapy (TBMT) or clinic-based McKenzie therapy (CBMT). Interventions were carried out 3 times weekly for a period of 8 weeks. Patients' level of disability was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline, week 4, and week 8. To estimate the health-related quality of life of the patients, the ODI was mapped to the short-form six dimensions instrument to generate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health care resource use and costs were assessed based on the McKenzie extension protocol in Nigeria in 2019. Descriptive and inferential data analyses were also performed to assess the clinical effectiveness of the interventions. Bootstrapping was conducted to generate the point estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsA total of 47 patients (TBMT, n=21 and CBMT, n=26), with a mean age of 47 (SD 11.6) years for telerehabilitation and 50 (SD 10.7) years for the clinic-based intervention, participated in this study. The mean cost estimates of TBMT and CBMT interventions per person were 22,200 naira (US $61.7) and 38,200 naira (US $106), respectively. QALY gained was 0.085 for TBMT and 0.084 for CBMT. The TBMT arm was associated with an additional 0.001 QALY (95% CI 0.001 to 0.002) per participant compared with the CBMT arm. Thus, the ICER showed that the TBMT arm was less costly and more effective than the CBMT arm.ConclusionsThe findings of the study suggested that telerehabilitation for people with NCLBP was cost saving. Given the small number of participants in this study, further examination of effects and costs of the interventions is needed within a larger sample size. In addition, future studies are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in the long term from the patient and societal perspective.

Dataset Information

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

Publications

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets