Purchase this article with an account.
K. E. Searcey, G. McGwin, Jr., D. K. DeCarlo, L. G. Mogk, N. Patterson, D. W. Siemsen, R. J. Cole, P. Amaral, J. D. Steinberg, C. Owsley; Basic Versus Basic Plus Advanced Low Vision Rehabilitation Services and Impact on Vision-Targeted Health-Related Quality of Life. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(13):6013.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
We are planning a clinical trial to examine the effectiveness of low vision rehab services in the US as provided to adults not receiving health care through the VA. In a national survey we characterized what usual care services are in the US (Arch Oph 2009). We next examined the preliminary responsiveness of a vision-targeted HRQoL questionnaire to low vision rehab services; the questionnaire was phone-administered from a coordinating center. We also compared the impact of basic services (assessment and optical rehab) vs basic plus advanced services (eg, OT, social work, resource education).
Persons were recruited from 7 sites (AL, 2 in CA, FL, MI, MN, PA) providing low vision rehab services. Entrance criteria were >18yo, spoke English, and no low vision rehab services in the past 2 years. The NEI VFQ-25 was administered by the AL coordinating center at baseline before rehab and 3 months after care was complete. Medical records provided clinical and rehab information.
467 persons enrolled; 333 completed both baseline and follow-up interviews. 66% were women; 84% were white, 11% Black, 5% other. Subjects ranged in age from 18-98 yo (M age 75). Visual acuity in the better eye averaged 20/90. 92% of participants had AMD, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, or other retinal degenerations. At follow-up VFQ subscales for general vision, near vision, and mental health were improved (p<.01). Those receiving basic services plus OT had greater improvement in the VFQ’s general vision subscale than did those receiving basic services only (p<.04). Those receiving basic services plus any other kind of advanced service had greater improvement on the general vision and distance activity subscales (p<.05) than those getting basic services only.
The VFQ is responsive to low vision rehab interventions when the VFQ is administered remotely from a coordinating center. Although sample sizes were small for subgroup analyses, results suggest that the type/level of care may lead to different magnitudes of improvement. This information is useful for planning clinical trials.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only