June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Chief Complaints of Low Vision Patients in 2019 compared to 2020
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Stephanie Aigbe
    Low Vision Rehabilitation, New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • Nicole Christie Ross
    Low Vision Rehabilitation, New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Stephanie Aigbe, None; Nicole Ross, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIDLLR grant: NIDILRR Award, 90DPGE0012-01-00
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 3602. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Stephanie Aigbe, Nicole Christie Ross; Chief Complaints of Low Vision Patients in 2019 compared to 2020. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):3602.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The COVID-19 pandemic has been disruptive to daily life, including those living with low vision (LV). We conducted a retrospective chart review to understand how chief complaints(CC) of those presenting for low vision services have changed.

Methods : A random subset of 121 charts from NECO Center for Eye Care LV Clinic between 2019 (group 1, pre-COVID-19, n=61) and 2020 (group 2, during COVID-19, n=60) were reviewed. Eligible charts included: those over 18 years, English-speaking, and without cognitive impairment. Group 1 patients were 19-96 years (mean 65, SD±23) with mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 0.95 logMAR (SD±0.73, Snellen equivalent 20/178), and mean contrast sensitivity (CS) of 1.03 logCS (SD±0.48). Group 2 patients were 18-98 years (mean 64, SD±21) with mean BCVA of 0.77 logMAR(SD±0.63, Snellen equivalent 20/117) and mean CS of 1.08 logCS (SD±0.48). CCs were categorized as: reading, driving, technology, general LV exam (i.e no specific complaint), mobility, and watching television. Employment status, onset of LV, prior technology use, and home support were also noted.

Results : We found a significant difference between proportions of CCs reported in 2019 vs. 2020 (Cramer’s V=0.32, p=0.028). For group 1, top three CCs were reading(52%), general LV exam(34%), technology(15%). For group 2, the top three CCs were reading(43%), technology(27%), general LV exam(12%). There was no significant difference in age, BCVA, CS between groups.

The proportions of CCs were significantly different for those with prior technology use (Cramer’s V=0.42, p=0.001). Patients with prior technology use reported difficulties using technology at a greater frequency.

Employment status also influenced reported CCs (Cramer’s V=0.29, p=0.006). Reading was the top CC amongst retirees(64%) and technology amongst the employed(30%).

Logistic regression was performed to further explore predictors of technology CCs. Prior technology use was a significant predictor (OR=6.2; 95% CI, 2.0-19.2). Onset of LV, BCVA, home support, and gender were not significant predictors. There was a trend, with more technology related complaints in Group 2 (Cramer’s V=0.15, p=0.11).

Conclusions : When exploring chief complaints in 2019 and 2020, we find that there may be a shift in LV patient needs. We note a trend of increasing technology related complaints in 2020, of which prior technology use was a significant predictor.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

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.

×