Experiences of occupational therapists using telehealth to continue to treat patients with low vision during the COVID-19 pandemic

Lamont, Amy; Brown, Kasey; Schoessow, Kim

doi:10.1080/14473828.2021.1946997

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 11 Similarly, occupational therapists at other practice sites outside of the Veterans’ Affairs system who used telerehabilitation for low vision clinically during the pandemic reported that access to materials at home was a barrier. 12 Our study team sought to overcome this by providing loaner smartphones with remote access control to connect patients to videoconference sessions. 1 , 13 This factor was important because 58% of our previous telerehabilitation study participants had never used videoconferencing between 2016 and 2022.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of Telerehabilitation Versus In-Office Training With Magnification Devices for Low Vision: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Bittner,

Kaminski,

Yoshinaga

et al. 2024

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose An evidence basis is lacking but needed to compare reading ability outcomes after magnification device training remotely via telerehabilitation versus in office. Methods A 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). Results Across 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. Conclusions Reading 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 Relevance These findings provide support for the use of telerehabilitation to enhance reading ability with newly prescribed magnifiers as an alternative modality of care delivery.

show abstract