Characterizing functional complaints in patients seeking outpatient low-vision services in the United States.
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To characterize functional complaints of new low-vision rehabilitation patients. DESIGN:Prospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS:The Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study recruited 819 patients between 2008 and 2011 from 28 clinical centers in the United States. METHODS:New patients referred for low-vision rehabilitation were asked, "What are your chief complaints about your vision?" before their appointment. Full patient statements were transcribed as free text. Two methods assessed whether statements indicated difficulty in each of 13 functional categories: (1) assessment by 2 masked clinicians reading the statement, and (2) a computerized search of the text for specific words or word fragments. Logistic regression models were used to predict the influence of age, gender, and visual acuity on the likelihood of reporting a complaint in each functional category. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Prevalence and risk factors for patient concerns within various functional categories. RESULTS:Reading was the most common functional complaint (66.4% of patients). Other functional difficulties expressed by at least 10% of patients included driving (27.8%), using visual assistive equipment (17.5%), mobility (16.3%), performing in-home activities (15.1%), lighting and glare (11.7%), and facial recognition and social interactions (10.3%). Good agreement was noted between the masked clinician graders and the computerized algorithm for categorization of functional complaints (median ? of 0.84 across the 13 categories). Multivariate logistic regression models demonstrated that the likelihood of reading difficulties increased mildly with age (odds ratio, 1.4 per 10-year increment in age; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-1.6), but did not differ with visual acuity (P = 0.09). Additionally, men were more likely to report driving difficulties and difficulties related to lighting, whereas women were more likely to report difficulty with either in-home activities or facial recognition or social interaction (P<0.05 for all). Mobility concerns, defined as walking difficulty and out-of-home activities, showed no relationship to gender, age, or visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS:Reading was the most commonly reported difficulty, regardless of the patient's diagnosis. Neither visual acuity nor gender were predictive of reading concerns, although, age showed a small effect. Addressing reading rehabilitation should be a cornerstone of low-vision therapy.
Project description:<h4>Purpose</h4>Most people with low vision experience difficulty with reading. Reading assessment can provide guidance for prescription of reading aids and strategies for reading rehabilitation. Here we investigate the effectiveness of letter acuity (LA) and reading acuity (RA) as predictors of low-vision reading performance.<h4>Methods</h4>Low-vision subjects (n = 58), young control subjects (n = 52), and older control subjects (n = 14) participated in this study. The low-vision subjects were separated into a Macular group (n = 30) and a Nonmacular group (n = 28) based on whether the diagnoses primarily affected the macular area. LA was measured with the Lighthouse Distance Visual Acuity Chart and RA with the MNREAD Acuity Chart. Reading speeds were obtained across a range of print sizes from the MNREAD test. The MNREAD data were used to estimate required print sizes for three functionally important types of reading for each subject: spot reading (40 words/min [wpm]), fluent reading (80 wpm), and critical print size (required to achieve maximum reading speed).<h4>Results</h4>For equal values of LA, the Macular group had significantly worse RA than the Nonmacular group. The differences between vision groups, as well as individual variations within groups, were largely explained by the differences in RA. RA is a better predictor than LA for spot reading size, fluent reading size, and critical print size.<h4>Conclusions</h4>RA may provide more accurate assessment of reading performance than LA for purposes of low-vision reading rehabilitation.
Project description:The Adult Strabismus Quality of Life Questionnaire (AS-20) and the Amblyopia & Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ) both measure health-related quality of life in strabismus patients. We evaluated to what extent these instruments cover similar domains by identifying the underlying quality-of-life factors of the combined questionnaires.Participants were adults from a historic cohort with available orthoptic childhood data documenting strabismus and/or amblyopia. They had previously completed the A&SQ and were now asked to complete the AS-20. Factor analysis was performed on the correlation-matrix of the combined AS-20 and A&SQ data to identify common underlying factors. The identified factors were correlated with the clinical variables of angle of strabismus, degree of binocular vision, and visual acuity of the worse eye.One hundred ten patients completed both questionnaires (mean age, 44 years; range, 38-51 years). Six factors were found that together explained 78% of the total variance. The factor structure was dominated by the first four factors. One factor contained psychosocial and social-contact items, and another factor depth-perception items from both questionnaires. A third factor contained seven items-only from the AS-20-on eye strain, stress, and difficulties with reading and with concentrating. A fourth factor contained seven items-only from the A&SQ-on fear of losing the better eye and visual disorientation, specific for amblyopia. Current visual acuity of the worse eye correlated with depth-perception items and vision-related items, whereas current binocular vision correlated with psychosocial and social-contact items, in 93 patients.Factor analysis suggests that the AS-20 and A&SQ measure a similar psychosocial quality-of-life domain. However, functional problems like avoidance of reading, difficulty in concentrating, eye stress, reading problems, inability to enjoy hobbies, and need for frequent breaks when reading are represented only in the AS-20. During the development of the A&SQ, asthenopia items were considered insufficiently specific for strabismus and were excluded a priori. The patients who generated the items for the AS-20 had, in majority, adulthood-onset strabismus and diplopia and were, hence, more likely to develop such complaints than our adult patients with childhood-onset strabismus and/or amblyopia.
Project description:To compare the efficacy of behavioral activation (BA) plus low vision rehabilitation with an occupational therapist (OT-LVR) with supportive therapy (ST) on visual function in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).Single-masked, attention-controlled, randomized clinical trial with AMD patients with subsyndromal depressive symptoms (n = 188). All subjects had two outpatient low vision rehabilitation optometry visits, then were randomized to in-home BA + OT-LVR or ST. Behavioral activation is a structured behavioral treatment aiming to increase adaptive behaviors and achieve valued goals. Supportive therapy is a nondirective, psychological treatment that provides emotional support and controls for attention. Functional vision was assessed with the activity inventory (AI) in which participants rate the difficulty level of goals and corresponding tasks. Participants were assessed at baseline and 4 months.Improvements in functional vision measures were seen in both the BA + OT-LVR and ST groups at the goal level (d = 0.71; d = 0.56 respectively). At the task level, BA + OT-LVR patients showed more improvement in reading, inside-the-home tasks and outside-the-home tasks, when compared to ST patients. The greatest effects were seen in the BA + OT-LVR group in subjects with a visual acuity ?20/70 (d = 0.360 reading; d = 0.500 inside the home; d = 0.468 outside the home).Based on the trends of the AI data, we suggest that BA + OT-LVR services, provided by an OT in the patient's home following conventional low vision optometry services, are more effective than conventional optometric low vision services alone for those with mild visual impairment. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00769015.).
Project description:IMPORTANCE:Most patients with low vision are elderly and have functional limitations from other health problems that could add to the functional limitations caused by their visual impairments. OBJECTIVE:To identify factors that contribute to visual ability measures in patients who present for outpatient low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:As part of a prospective, observational study of new patients seeking outpatient LVR, 779 patients from 28 clinical centers in the United States were enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study (LVROS) from April 25, 2008, through May 2, 2011. The Activity Inventory (AI), an adaptive visual function questionnaire, was administered to measure overall visual ability and visual ability in 4 functional domains (reading, mobility, visual motor function, and visual information processing) at baseline before LVR. The Geriatric Depression Scale, Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical functioning questionnaires were also administered to measure patients' psychological, cognitive, and physical health states, respectively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Predictors of visual ability and functional domains as measured by the AI. RESULTS:Among the 779 patients in the LVROS sample, the mean age was 76.4 years, 33% were male, and the median logMAR visual acuity score was 0.60 (0.40-0.90 interquartile range). Correlations were observed between logMAR visual acuity and baseline visual ability overall (r?=?-0.42) and for all functional domains. Visual acuity was the strongest predictor of visual ability (P ?<?.001) and reading ability (P?<?.001) and had a significant independent effect on the other functional domains. Physical ability was independently associated with (P?<?.001) overall visual ability as well as mobility and visual motor function. Depression had a consistent independent effect (P?<?.001) on overall visual ability and on all functional domains, whereas cognition had an effect on only reading and mobility (P?<?.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Visual ability is a multidimensional construct, with visual acuity, depression, physical ability, and cognition explaining more than one-third of the variance in visual ability as measured by the AI. The significant contributions of the nonvisual factors to visual ability measures and the rehabilitation potential (ie, ceiling) effects they may impose on LVR are important considerations when measuring baseline visual ability and ultimately LVR outcomes in ongoing clinical research.
Project description:The prevalence of irreversible vision impairment in the United States is expected to increase by 2050. Vision rehabilitation is the primary treatment option. Clinical trials have established its efficacy in improving quality of life. Yet studies indicate that patients experience many barriers to accessing low-vision care.To examine the rate of referral for low-vision rehabilitation services by resident and attending ophthalmologists for adults with irreversible vision impairment and to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of patients about vision rehabilitation.Cross-sectional study with enrollment from June 20, 2016, to January 31, 2017, of 143 adults 18 years or older seen in a publicly funded, comprehensive eye clinic in Jefferson County, Alabama, and having 1 or both eyes with irreversible vision impairment (visual acuity was defined as 20/60 or worse) per the electronic health record.Demographic characteristics; patient questionnaire on knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about vision rehabilitation; general cognitive status (Short Orientation-Memory-Concentration test); depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9); health literacy (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine, Revised [REALM-R]); and self-reported difficulty in everyday activities.Proportion of patients with irreversible vision impairment who were referred by ophthalmologists to low-vision rehabilitation services per the electronic health record.Of 143 patients enrolled with irreversible vision impairment in 1 or both eyes, the mean (SD) age was 55.4 (11.1) years and 68 (47.6%) were women. Most patients were African American (123 [86.0%]), uninsured (88 [61.5%]), and unemployed (92 [64.3%]); on average, they had normal cognitive status, minor depressive symptoms, and limited health literacy. As noted in the electronic health record, the rate of referral for low-vision rehabilitation services was 11.4% for patients with irreversible bilateral vision impairment (4 of 35 patients) and 1.9% for those with unilateral impairment (2 of 108). Most patients with bilateral (31 of 34 [91.2%]) and unilateral (90 of 97 [92.8%]) impairment indicated that they were bothered by their vision impairment, and most reported difficulty with reading (33 of 34 patients [97.1%] who were bilaterally impaired vs 85 of 104 [81.7%] who were unilaterally impaired).Results of this study suggest a need to better educate ophthalmologists and residents in ophthalmology about referrals to low-vision rehabilitation services for patients with irreversible vision impairment.
Project description:The purpose of this study was to assess which visual function measures are most strongly associated with vision-related quality of life (VRQoL) in age-related macular degeneration (AMD). A cross-sectional study of subjects with early AMD (n?=?10), intermediate AMD (n?=?42) and late AMD (n?=?38) was conducted. Subjects were interviewed with the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire. Functional tests performed included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), low luminance visual acuity (LLVA), visual acuity measured with the Moorfields Acuity Charts (MAC), contrast sensitivity, reading speed, mesopic and dark-adapted microperimetry. The relationship between VRQoL and visual function was assessed with multiple regressions controlling for confounders. Rasch analysis demonstrated the validity of the IVI to assess VRQoL through three subscales: reading and accessing information, mobility and independence, and emotional well-being. Subjects with late AMD had significant lower IVI scores on all subscales compared with intermediate and early AMD (p?<?0.011). In the overall cohort, IVI subscales were associated with BCVA, LLVA, MAC-VA and contrast sensitivity (all p?<?0.001). Among the subgroup of early and intermediate AMD subjects, reading and mobility subscales were significantly associated with MAC-VA (p?<?0.013). These results suggest that MAC-VA is a useful, patient-relevant measure of visual impairment in AMD.
Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate clinical outcomes with a premium diffractive-refractive trifocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) over a 12-month period. METHODS:Multicentre prospective clinical trial including 227 eyes of 114 patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of the AT LISA tri toric 939MP IOL (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). One patient was implanted unilaterally. Outcome measures were: visual acuity, manifest refraction, reading performance, contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, patient satisfaction and subjective quality of vision. Alpins vector analysis was used to evaluate astigmatic changes. RESULTS:12-month follow up results of binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity were ?0.3?logMAR in 99.0%, 98.10% and 91.40% of eyes, respectively. 79.7% of eyes had a cylinder value of ±0.50?D at 12 months post-surgery. Contrast sensitivity was in the normal range at 6 months post-surgery. The defocus curve exhibited a smooth transition between far and near foci. Vector analysis showed a mean magnitude of error of -0.16?±?0.48?D. Mean binocular distance-corrected reading visual acuity was 0.15?±?0.13?logRAD at 6 months postoperatively. 93.3%, 89.4% and 84.6% of patients expressed satisfaction (good or very good) with distance, intermediate and near vision, respectively, 12 months after surgery. Most (?95%) patients felt that visual disturbances, including halos, glare, focusing difficulties and depth perception, caused little or no disturbance. CONCLUSIONS:The diffractive-refractive trifocal toric IOL, AT LISA tri toric 939MP, provides effective distance, intermediate and near visual acuity in eyes with corneal astigmatism. Patient satisfaction was high and 98.1% of patients expressed satisfaction with the IOL implanted.
Project description:Purpose:We evaluated the correlations between visual deficits and patient-reported symptoms in patients with regressed proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) to determine whether there is a psychophysical basis for vision-related impairments. Methods:Visual acuity, reading acuity, contrast sensitivity, frequency doubling perimetry (FDP), Humphrey field analyzer (HFA), and dark adaptation assessed visual function. The National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) and Low Luminance Questionnaire (LLQ) assessed quality of life. Results:We recruited 30 adults who received panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for PDR and 15 control subjects; 22 diabetic and 11 control participants completed a second evaluation 5 years later. Visual acuity of the worse-seeing eyes tended to correlate better with NEI VFQ-25 and LLQ than did the acuity of the better-seeing eyes. Other vision measures were generally not associated with either questionnaire, especially responses related to driving ability and mental health. Visual acuity only detected subnormal performance in 43% to 45% of patients, while FDP 24-2, HFA 60-4, and LLQ detected abnormal performance in >80% of patients. Conclusions:Poor visual acuity may explain some vision-related impairments in daily function. However, many patients with regressed PDR have normal acuity but reduced visual field and poor quality of life. In these patients, their reported symptoms were not fully explained by visual acuity or any psychophysical tests alone. Translational Relevance:Visual acuity is a poor indicator of overall visual function in people with regressed PDR. In clinical settings, visual field tests and patient-reported outcomes may provide more comprehensive assessments of their functional deficits than visual acuity.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Visual impairment following stroke is common with a reported incidence of visual impairment in 60% of stroke survivors. Screening for visual impairment is neither routine nor standardised. This results in a health inequality where some stroke survivors receive comprehensive vision assessment to identify any existent visual problems while others receive no vision assessment leaving them with unmet needs from undiagnosed visual problems. The aim of this study was to define two core outcome sets (COS), one for vision screening and one for full visual assessment of stroke survivors. DESIGN:A list of potentially relevant visual assessments was created from a review of the literature. The consensus process consisted of an online 3-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting of the key stakeholders. PARTICIPANTS:Stakeholders included orthoptists, occupational therapists, ophthalmologists, stroke survivors and COS users such as researchers, journal editors and guideline developers. SETTING:University. OUTCOME MEASURES:COS. RESULTS:Following the consensus process we recommend the following nine assessments for vision screening: case history, clinical observations of visual signs, visual acuity, eye alignment position, eye movement assessment, visual field assessment, visual neglect assessment, functional vision assessment and reading assessment. We recommend the following 11 assessments for full vision assessment: case history, observations, visual acuity, eye alignment position, eye movement assessment, binocular vision assessment, eye position measurement, visual field assessment, visual neglect assessment, functional vision assessment, reading assessment and quality of life questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS:COS are defined for vision screening and full vision assessment for stroke survivors. There is potential for their use in reducing heterogeneity in routine clinical practice and for improving standardisation and accuracy of vision assessment. Future research is required to evaluate the use of these COS and for further exploration of core outcome measures.
Project description:SIGNIFICANCE:Head-mounted low vision devices have received considerable attention in recent years owing to rapidly developing technology, facilitating ease of use and functionality. Systematic clinical evaluations of such devices remain rare but are needed to steer future device development. PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to investigate, in a multicenter prospective trial, the short- and medium-term effects of a head-worn vision enhancement device (eSight Eyewear). METHODS:Participants aged 13 to 75 years with stable vision (distance acuity, 20/60 to 20/400; visual field diameter >20°) were recruited across six sites. Data were collected at baseline (no device), at fitting (with device), and after 3 months of everyday use. Outcome measures were visual ability measured by the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire 48, distance acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study), reading performance (MNREAD chart), contrast sensitivity (MARS chart), face recognition, and a modified version of the Melbourne Low Vision Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Index. RESULTS:Among the 51 participants, eSight introduction immediately improved distance acuity (0.74 ± 0.28 logMAR), contrast sensitivity (0.57 ± 0.53 log units), and critical print size (0.52 ± 0.43 logMAR), all P < .001, without any further change after 3 months; reading acuity improved at fitting (0.56 ± 0.35 logMAR) and by one additional line after 3 months, whereas reading speed only slightly increased across all three time points. The Melbourne ADL score and face recognition improved at fitting (P < .01) with trends toward further improvement at 3 months. After 3 months of use, Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire 48 person measures (in logits) improved: overall, 0.84, P < .001; reading, 2.75, P < .001; mobility, 0.04, not statistically significant; visual information, 1.08, P < .001; and visual motor, 0.48, P = .02. CONCLUSIONS:eSight introduction yields immediate improvements in visual ability, with face recognition and ADLs showing a tentative benefit of further use. Overall, visual ability, reading, and visual information showed greatest benefit with device use. Further studies need to examine benefits of practice and training and possible differential effects of underlying pathology or baseline vision.