May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT)
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J. Stelmack
    Blind Rehabilitation Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL
    UIC Department of Opthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois College of Optometry, Chicago, IL
  • R. Mancil
    Heffner VAMC, Salisbury, NC
  • G. Mancil
    Heffner VAMC, Salisbury, NC
  • R. Cummings
    Heffner VAMC, Salisbury, NC
  • D. Moran
    Blind Rehabilitation Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL
  • S. Rinne
    Blind Rehabilitation Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL
  • R. Massof
    Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Balltimore, MD
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J. Stelmack, None; R. Mancil, None; G. Mancil, None; R. Cummings, None; D. Moran, None; S. Rinne, None; R. Massof, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  VARRD C3457
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 1920. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J. Stelmack, R. Mancil, G. Mancil, R. Cummings, D. Moran, S. Rinne, R. Massof; Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT) . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):1920.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: An unmasked RCT is being conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a new low vision program for veterans with moderate and severe vision loss secondary to macular diseases. Methods: Subjects include 122 veterans from Chicago and Salisbury, NC. Veterans are being randomized to treatment from the low vision outpatient program or a usual care (waiting list) control group. Following low vision examination, veterans in the treatment group are receiving 5 (2–2 1/2 hour) therapy sessions at the local VA sites and one home visit to evaluate the home environment/set up prescribed devices. Low vision devices provided include: desk top model CCTVs, monocular telescopes, teleloupes, illuminated stands/reading glasses, pocket magnifiers and non–optical aids. Results: The primary outcome measure is change in reading domain scores on the VA LV VFQ–48, a telephone questionnaire where subjects self–report their difficulty performing daily living activities in the community. Other measures include, instructor’s rating of veteran’s visual skills and use of low vision devices after rehabilitation, visual skills for reading (PEPPER VSRT), health status (SF–36), and symptoms of depression (CES–D). Outcomes will be compared with T tests. Multiple linear regression models are used to identify predictors and explain outcomes. Costs and cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment are being evaluated. Conclusions: This is one of the first RCTs to measure the effectiveness of a low vision rehabilitation program incorporating vision rehabilitation with electronic and optical low vision devices. Findings will contribute to the evidence base for CMS funding of low vision service delivery.

Keywords: low vision • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled • macula/fovea 

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.