June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
An Evolution of Telerehabilitation for Low Vision Follow-ups
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ava K Bittner
    Ophthalmology; Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States
  • Nicole Ross
    New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Ava Bittner jCyte, Inc., Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Nicole Ross None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH/NEI, R21 EY029883; 2019 Clinical Research Award: American Academy of Optometry; 2017 Fredric Rosemore Low Vision Educational Grant: American Academy of Optometry Foundation; Envision Research Institute
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 2661. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ava K Bittner, Nicole Ross; An Evolution of Telerehabilitation for Low Vision Follow-ups. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):2661.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : For studies of telerehabilitation to provide follow-up assessment and training to low vision (LV) patients with newly prescribed magnification devices, we examined whether different approaches to reduce the burden of the technology over the past 5 years had impact on ratings of the telerehabilitation encounter.

Methods : Our previous telerehabilitation studies for follow-ups with LV subjects at home connected loaner Android/iPad tablets to zoom videoconferencing via either remote phone-based support by investigators (phase 1 in 2016-17; n=10) or local Lions Club volunteers who went to participants’ homes (phase 2 in 2018-19; n=11), followed by a randomized controlled trial (phase 3 in 2020-21) in which remote control access software connected loaner smartphones to zoom (n=20) or training was provided in-office (control group; n=12). Subjects in all phases completed the same post-telerehabilitation phone survey.

Results : A significantly greater proportion of phase 3 subjects indicated they strongly or mostly agreed that the technology did not interfere with the session (95%) than in phase 1 (60%; OR:3.6; 95%CI:1.1-11.7; p=0.036) or phase 2 (55%; OR:15.8; 95%CI:1.5-164; p=0.02), whereas there was no significant difference in this aspect between phases 1 and 2 (p=0.80). The majority (76%) agreed that telerehabilitation was as accurate as in-person, and 84% strongly or mostly agreed they were interested in another future session, with no significant differences between phases (all p>0.10). Despite only 39% who had previously used any videoconferencing, nearly all (93%) strongly or mostly agreed they were comfortable with evaluation and training via telerehabilitation; there were no significant differences in comfort, prior videoconferencing, or frequency of Internet use between phases (all p>0.10). In phase 3 when comparing ratings for telerehabilitation to in-office training, there were no significant differences for subjects' comfort level (p=0.29), overall satisfaction (p=0.67), whether self-rated magnifier use improved after the session (p=0.22) or interest to have another session (p=0.30).

Conclusions : Study participants across all phases reported high levels of acceptance for telerehabilitation, with less interference of technology when remote control access was used during the pandemic. There were no significant differences in ratings when comparing subjects randomized to telerehabilitation or in-office care during the pandemic.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

×
×

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.

×