September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial II: 4-Month and One-Year Results
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Joan Stelmack
    Blind Rehabilitation Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, United States
    Ophthalmology, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, United States
  • X Charlene Tang
    Cooperative Studies Coordinating Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, United States
  • Yongliang Wei
    Cooperative Studies Coordinating Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, United States
  • Scott Sayers
    Blind Rehabilitation Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, United States
  • Robert W Massof
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Joan Stelmack, None; X Charlene Tang, None; Yongliang Wei, None; Scott Sayers, None; Robert Massof, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  VA Rehabilitation Research And Development Service #C 6958-R
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 5187. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Joan Stelmack, X Charlene Tang, Yongliang Wei, Scott Sayers, Robert W Massof; Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial II: 4-Month and One-Year Results. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):5187.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation (LVR) and basic LV in a single masked RCT conducted at 9 VA clinical sites.

Methods : Methods: 323 subjects with macular diseases and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/200 were randomized to LVR treatment or a basic LV control group. All participants received a LV exam and were eligible for the same LV devices at no charge. In LVR, a therapist dispensed devices and provided mean 1.9 ± 0.3 therapy sessions (194.5 ± 114.0 minutes ) with assigned homework to teach use of remaining vision and prescribed devices. In basic LV, devices were dispensed by the optometrist without therapy (mean 44.9 ± 10.0 minutes). The primary outcome measure compared the changes in visual reading ability estimated from patients’ difficulty ratings of reading items on the VA LV VFQ-48 questionnaire between the treatment and control groups from pre-intervention baseline to 4-months later. Secondary outcomes are changes in visual ability, visual ability domain scores calculated from subsets of items (mobility, visual information processing, and visual motor skills) from pre-intervention baseline to 4 months later. Follow-up was conducted at one-year after the control group received usual VA low vision therapy.

Results : Results: At 4-months, all subscales and overall scores in both groups improved after the intervention, p< .05. However, the treatment group had more significant improvement compared to the control group in all domains except for mobility: reading 1.3 vs. 0.9 logits, visual information processing 0.7 vs. 0.4 logits, visual motor 0.8 vs. 0.4 logits, overall visual ability 0.7 vs. 0.4 logits, all p<.05. At one-year, there were no statistically significant differences in improvement between the treatment and control groups except for visual information (p=0.03).

Conclusions : Conclusions: LVR and Basic LV are both effective; but LVR is more effective than basic LV in VA patients with macular diseases and visual acuity from 20/50 to 20/200. After additional treatment, the control group catches up to the treatment group at one-year follow-up.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×