Personalized Telerehabilitation for a Head-mounted Low Vision Aid: A Randomized Feasibility Study

Lorenzini, Marie-Céline; Wittich, Walter

doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001704

Cited by 14 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Doing so could provide an efficient use of clinical time, with identification of comfortable print size being much quicker than a full analysis of reading speed and a size plot, even when a full reading curve assessment can be semi-automated by use of an app. 6 Additionally, with the rise of tele-rehabilitation in low vision during the COVID-19 pandemic, [33][34][35] could determination of comfortable print size be a useful way of assessing reading function with larger print sizes remotely? The present study suggests the comfortable print size identified by a visually impaired person can tell the clinician something useful.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is patient identification of ‘comfortable’ print size a useful clinical parameter for low vision reading assessment?

Latham

Macnaughton

2022

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to determine what a person with vision loss considers a 'comfortable' print size to read, and examine whether this reflects any of three currently used parameters for identifying print size required for sustained reading tasks: minimum size to achieve maximum reading speed (the critical print size (CPS)); minimum size for functional reading at 80 wpm and/or a size that is double the reading acuity (representing an acuity reserve of 2:1).Methods: Forty-seven participants entering low vision rehabilitation (mean age 77 years, 24 with macular degeneration) were assessed using MNREAD charts to determine reading acuity, maximum reading speed, CPS and the minimum size allowing functional (80 wpm) reading. Comfortable print size was assessed by asking participants to identify 'the smallest print size that you would find comfortable using' on the MNREAD chart.Results: There was little difference between comfortable print size and CPS (mean difference 0.05 logMAR (SD 0.18); p = 0.08, limits of agreement ±0.35 logMAR), and no trend for the difference between values to differ across the functional range.Size for functional reading could only be assessed for 41 participants, and the difference between this and comfortable print size varied across the functional range. Comfortable print size was consistently smaller than twice the reading acuity size (mean difference 0.11 logMAR (SD 0.17); p < 0.001), with an average acuity reserve of 1.74:1. Conclusions:Asking people with visual impairment to identify a print size that is comfortable to read provides a print size similar to the CPS. This can be used as a guide in selecting magnification for sustained reading without having to undertake further analyses. Identification of perceived comfortable print size may offer a time-efficient clinical method of estimating magnification requirements, and be relevant for undertaking effective remote consultations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is patient identification of ‘comfortable’ print size a useful clinical parameter for low vision reading assessment?

Latham

Macnaughton

2022

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a recent RCT of a wearable electronic device as a visual aid, eSight Eyewear, telerehabilitation was highly rated by most of the participants for the same survey items as our studies to evaluate comfort level, overall satisfaction, and future interest. 19 Our RCT differed from the eSight RCT in that we allowed participants to practice with a new visual aid prior to evaluating the effects of additional training and included older adults who did not have Internet access, as they might benefit the most from telerehabilitation to learn a new device technology. Future work could explore the potential benefits of telerehabilitation to assist with other aspects of low vision, such as providing information about other low-vision aids, services, emotional support, counseling, or training for visual assistive mobile applications (apps), high spectacle add powers for near reading, or eccentric viewing techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acceptability of Telerehabilitation for Magnification Devices for the Visually Impaired Using Various Approaches to Facilitate Accessibility

Bittner

Yoshinaga

Shepherd

et al. 2022

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…6,10 Despite the prevalence of those impacted by low vision, there are a limited number of clinicians who specialize in the treatment and rehabilitation of those living with low vision. 3 As of November 2021, only 106 of the 126 610 practicing occupational therapists in the United States had a specialty certification in low vision (SCLV) from the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA). 11,12 The Academy for the Certification of Vision Rehabilitation & Education Professionals (ACVREP) identifies 543 clinicians who are board-certified low-vision therapists (CLVTs) (K. Zeider, ed, e-mail communication, 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies support the use of telehealth for addressing deficits in daily activities 17 ; however, few studies have examined the effectiveness of telehealth specifically for those living with low vision. 3 A recent systematic review of telehealth services found only one study that used telehealth services for those with low vision. 3 This small study demonstrated that telehealth was feasible and accepted by individuals with low vision.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the Impact of a Hybrid Telehealth Program for Adults Living With Low Vision

Aravich

Stants

2022

Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

implemented a hybrid model of care that combined in-clinic care and telehealth services. Fifteen patients, aged 19 to 95 years, living with a variety of low-vision diagnoses used telehealth services and had access to a supplemental device lending library. This qualitative program evaluation describes the hybrid model, patient experiences with those services, and future steps. This program demonstrated a decrease in missed appointments and a general acceptance by those using these services.

show abstract

Personalized Telerehabilitation for a Head-mounted Low Vision Aid: A Randomized Feasibility Study

Abstract: Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Cited by 14 publications

References 35 publications

Is patient identification of ‘comfortable’ print size a useful clinical parameter for low vision reading assessment?

Is patient identification of ‘comfortable’ print size a useful clinical parameter for low vision reading assessment?

Acceptability of Telerehabilitation for Magnification Devices for the Visually Impaired Using Various Approaches to Facilitate Accessibility

Exploring the Impact of a Hybrid Telehealth Program for Adults Living With Low Vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About