Purchase this article with an account.
Nivea Nunes Cavascan, Paula Sacai, Hye Lim Oh, Paula Baptista Eliseo Silva, Carla Ribeiro da Silva Santos, Ariadne Stavare Leal, Celia Regina Nakanami; Self-reported visual function and related quality of life in low-income visually impaired patients. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):3297. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Rehabilitative intervention may benefit low-vision patients by improvement of their useful residual vision, social inclusion and quality of life. The purpose of this study was to assess self-reported visual function and related quality of life in low-income visually impaired patients referred for visual rehabilitation.
Adult subjects referred to visual rehabilitation with best-corrected distance visual acuity ≤0.6logMAR in the better-vision eye were included. Participants underwent to monocular and binocular visual acuity (ETDRS chart) for distance (DVA) and near (NVA), and the visual performance (VP) with optical device was measured when it was used. The WHO 20-item International Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VFQ) was administered in individual interviews. VFQ validation was provided by examining internal consistency of responses to subscale questions as measured by Cronbach’s alpha statistic. Pearson’s correlation and t-test were used to assess the association of VFQ scores with age, gender, visual impairment severity, time lived with disability and optical device usage. Statistical significance was considered as p≤0.05.
Twenty participants (12 females – 60%) with ages ranging from 19 to 82 years (mean=50.0±20.0) were included. Mean binocular DVA was 0.97±0.28logMAR and NVA 0.92±0.29logMAR, and 65% (n=13) of participants were enabled to use optical devices, achieving VP from 0.0 to 0.6 logMAR with them. Subscales for visual functioning (VF: general vision, distant vision, near vision, sensory adaptation) and quality of life (QOL: pain, social activities, mental status) had internal consistency of responses of 0.89 and 0.74, respectively. VF score was significantly higher for rehabilitated participants when compared to those without optical device usage (t=-2.213; p=0.040). Higher QOL score was significantly associated with older age (r=0.489; p=0.029). VF and QOL scores were not influenced by gender, visual impairment severity and time lived with disability.
Patients enabled to use of optical devices had a higher VF score while younger patients had a worse QOL score through the VFQ instrument. This method of evaluation may be useful in clinical practice to assess the real impact of the rehabilitation program on the daily life of visually impaired persons.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only