May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Outcome of Rehabilitation of Visually Impaired
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • G.V. Rens
    Ophthalmology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ophthalmology, Elkerliek Ziekenhuis, Helmond, The Netherlands
  • M. Boer de
    Ophthalmology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • M. Langelaan
    Ophthalmology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  G.V. Rens, None; M. Boer de, None; M. Langelaan, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  LSBS
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 1921. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      G.V. Rens, M. Boer de, M. Langelaan; Outcome of Rehabilitation of Visually Impaired . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):1921.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: To assess the long–term outcome of low vision services on vision–related QOL and to compare the outcome of persons referred to optometric and multidisciplinary low vision services. Methods:From July 2000 to January 2003 consecutive patients who were referred to optometric or multidisciplinary low vision services and above 50 years of age were recruited from the Departments of Ophthalmology of four hospitals in the Netherlands. They completed two vision–related quality of life (QOL) questionnaires, the VCM1 and the LVQOL, before their first visit with the low vision services and one year later. In addition information on potential confounders was derived from patients’ records or by self–report. Results: Paired sample t–tests for the two groups of patients taken together show statistically significant improvement for the VCM1 (p = 0.02) and deterioration for the basic aspects of vision (p < 0.01) and the mobility (p < 0.001) subscales of the LVQOL. Patients referred to multidisciplinary low vision services had lower scores on the mobility subscale of the LVQOL than patients referred to optometric low vision services (p = 0.04). Conclusions: In conclusion, in contrast to studies with a relatively short follow–up, our results indicate a small decline in the ability of vision–related functioning and a small improvement in adjustment to vision loss in patients referred to low vision services at one year follow–up. In addition, no differences in vision–related QOL were found between participants in both groups, except that people referred to optometric services showed less deterioration in mobility.

Keywords: quality of life • low vision • aging 

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.