Positive feedback from both participants and providers in this pilot study supports the feasibility, acceptability, and potential value of low vision telerehabilitation.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: Our goal is to systematically review the literature on telerehabilitation’s effectiveness for improving vision-related quality of life and/ or reading speed compared to face-to-face (e.g., in-office or inpatient) low vision rehabilitation services in patients with low vision or visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives are to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, VAE device abandonment rates, and/or patient satisfaction ratings in the same studies.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: Our goal is to systematically review the literature on telerehabilitation's effectiveness for improving vision-related quality of life and/ or reading speed compared to face-to-face (e.g., inoffice or inpatient) low vision rehabilitation services in patients with low vision or visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives are to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, VAE device abandonment rates, and/or patient satisfaction ratings in the same studies.

Purpose We examined different methods to reduce the burden of accessing technology for videoconferencing during telerehabilitation for magnification devices for the visually impaired. Methods During telerehabilitation studies over the past 5 years, vision rehabilitation providers assessed and gave training to visually impaired participants with newly dispensed magnification devices at home who connected to Zoom videoconferencing via loaner tablets or smartphones with assistance from (phase 1; n = 10) investigators by phone, (phase 2; n = 11) local Lions Club volunteers in participants’ homes, or (phase 3; n = 24) remote access control software in a randomized controlled trial with 13 usual care controls who received in-office training. All participants completed the same post-telerehabilitation phone survey. Results A significantly greater proportion of phase 3 subjects indicated they strongly or mostly agreed that the technology did not interfere with the session (96%) compared to phase 1 (60%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2–12.5; P = 0.03) or phase 2 (55%; 95% CI, 1.8–188; P = 0.01). The majority indicated telerehabilitation was as accurate as in person (68%), they were comfortable with telerehabilitation (91%) and interested in a future session (83%), and their magnifier use improved (79%), with no significant differences in these responses between phases (all P > 0.10), including comparisons of participants randomized to telerehabilitation or in-office training in phase 3 who reported similar overall satisfaction levels ( P = 0.84). Conclusions Participants across all phases reported high levels of acceptance for telerehabilitation, with least interference from technology using remote access control in phase 3. Translational Relevance With accommodations for accessibility to videoconferencing technology, telerehabilitation for magnification devices can be a feasible, acceptable, and valuable option in countries with resources to support the technology.

Background Low 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. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through remote, Internet-based consultation (i.e., telerehabilitation). Objectives To 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 reading speed in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives are to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for visual assistive equipment devices, and patient satisfaction ratings. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1980 to June 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2015), PubMed (1980 to June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). 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 15 June 2015. Selection criteria We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants were diagnosed with low vision and were undergoing low vision rehabilitation using an Internet, web-based technology compared with an approach based on in-person consultations. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and then full-text articles against the eligibility criteria. We planned to have two authors independently abstract data from included studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. Main results We did not find any study that met the inclusion criteria for this review and, hence, we did not conduct a quantitative analysis. As a part of the background, we discussed review articles on telemedicine for facilitating communication with elderly individuals or for providing remote ophthalmological care. Authors’ conclusions We did not find any evidence on whether the use of telerehabilitation is feasible or a potentially viable means to remotely deliver rehabilitation services to individuals with low vision. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, there is a need for future pilot studies and subsequent clinical trials to explore the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.