2017 National Optometry Workforce Survey.

SIGNIFICANCE: Planning for the effective delivery of eye care, on all levels, depends on an accurate and detailed knowledge of the optometric workforce and an understanding of demographic/behavioral trends to meet future needs of the public. PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to assess the current and future supply of doctors of optometry and to examine in-depth trends related to (1) demographic shifts, (2) sex-based differences, (3) differences in practice behaviors in between self-employed and employed optometrists, and (4) the concept of additional capacity within the profession. METHODS: The 2017 National Optometry Workforce Survey (31 items) was distributed to 4050 optometrists, randomly sampled from a population of 45,033 currently licensed and practicing optometrists listed in the American Optometric Association's Optometry Master Data File. A stratified sampling method was applied to the population of optometrists using primary license state, age, and sex as variables to ensure a representative sample. RESULTS: With a response rate of 29% (1158 responses), the sample ensured a 95% confidence interval with a margin of error of <5%. Key results include finding no significant differences between men and women for hours worked (38.9 vs. 37.5), productivity (patient visits per hour, 2.0 vs. 1.9), or career options/professional growth satisfaction with 65% for both. The data indicate a likely range of additional patient capacity of 2.29 to 2.57 patients per week (5.05 to 5.65 million annually profession-wide). CONCLUSIONS: The optometric workforce for the next decade is projected to grow 0.6 to 0.7% more annually than the U.S. population. The study found additional capacity for the profession more limited than previously suggested. Findings also illustrate an evolving/equitable workforce based on sex, in terms of both productivity and satisfaction. The trend toward employed versus self-employed was marked with 44% reporting they are employed, up from 29% in 2012.

Reading aids for adults with low vision.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of low-vision rehabilitation is to allow people to resume or to continue to perform daily living tasks, with reading being one of the most important. This is achieved by providing appropriate optical devices and special training in the use of residual-vision and low-vision aids, which range from simple optical magnifiers to high-magnification video magnifiers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of reading aids for adults with low vision. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to January 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2013), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 January 2013. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and used the Science Citation Index to find articles that cited the included studies and contacted investigators and manufacturers of low-vision aids. We handsearched the British Journal of Visual Impairment from 1983 to 1999 and the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness from 1976 to 1991. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review includes randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which any device or aid used for reading had been compared to another device or aid in people aged 16 or over with low vision as defined by the study investigators. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine small studies with a cross-over-like design (181 people overall) and one study with three parallel arms (243 participants) in the review. All studies reported the primary outcome, results for reading speed.Two studies including 92 participants found moderate- or low-quality evidence suggesting that reading speed is higher with stand-mounted electronic devices or electronic devices with the camera mounted in a 'mouse' than with optical magnifiers, which in these trials were generally stand-mounted or, less frequently, hand-held magnifiers or microscopic lenses. In another study of 20 participants there was moderate-quality evidence that optical devices are better than head-mounted electronic devices (four types).There was low-quality evidence from three studies (93 participants) that reading using head-mounted electronic devices is slower than with stand-based electronic devices. The technology of electronic devices may have changed and improved since these studies were conducted.One study suggested no difference between a diffractive spectacle-mounted magnifier and either refractive (15 participants) or aplanatic (15 participants) magnifiers.One study of 10 people suggested that several overlay coloured filters were no better and possibly worse than a clear filter.A parallel-arm study including 243 participants with age-related macular degeneration found that custom or standard prism spectacles were no different from conventional reading spectacles, although the data did not allow precise estimates of performance to be made. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence on the effect of different types of low-vision aids on reading performance. It would be necessary to investigate which patient characteristics predict performance with different devices, including costly electronic devices. Better-quality research should also focus on assessing sustained long-term use of each device. Authors of studies testing several devices on the same person should consider design and reporting issues related to their sequential presentation and to the cross-over-like study design.

Health services utilization and cost of retinitis pigmentosa.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate annual per-patient health services utilization and costs of retinitis pigmentosa (RP) in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of patients with RP (N = 2990) and a 1:1 exactly matched cohort of non-RP patients was conducted using the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases. Individuals were continuously enrolled in a commercial health plan or employer-sponsored health insurance for at least 1 year. The following annual outcomes were analyzed using nonlinear multivariate models: inpatient hospital admissions, inpatient hospital days, emergency department visits, outpatient physician visits, and prescription drug refills and inpatient and outpatient medical, pharmacy, and total health care costs. RESULTS: Patients with RP had 0.04 more hospital admissions (P < .001), 0.19 more inpatient hospital days (P < .02), 0.05 more emergency department visits (P < .01), 2.74 more outpatient visits (P < .001), and 2.18 additional prescription drug fills (P < .001) annually compared with their non-RP counterparts. Health care expenditures were significantly higher for patients with RP, who cost $894, $4855, and $452 more for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy services, respectively (P < .001). Overall health care costs were $7317 more per patient per year in the RP cohort, with expenditures varying considerably by age. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RP consume substantially greater amounts of health services with significantly higher health care costs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Treatments that slow, halt, or possibly restore RP-related vision loss may prove cost-effective for payers and society.

Treatment of homonymous visual field defects.

OPINION STATEMENT: A clinical presentation of a retrochiasmal or homonymous visual field defect (HVFD) usually represents a permanent visual impairment. The visual and functional ramifications of HVFD will vary by patient. Comprehensive care-the clinical evaluation and consideration for treatment of HVFD-includes vision rehabilitation provided by optometrists, occupational therapists, or ophthalmologists. On the basis of individual patient needs, the eye care practitioner typically uses one or both of the following approaches to treat the HVFD: (1) field enhancement (also referred to in the literature as "field expansion"), in which optical systems incorporating prism are prescribed to optimize the use of the remaining vision, and (2) rehabilitative techniques including saccadic training ("compensation training") or vision restorative therapy ("restitution training"). Although lacking in strength, the evidence does support benefits from field enhancement and saccadic training for patients with HVFD, but vision restorative therapy has not been shown to be an effective option.

Self-reported importance and difficulty of driving in a low-vision clinic population.

PURPOSE: To validate estimates of self-perceived driving ability from difficulty ratings of driving tasks and to determine the association of the importance and difficulty of driving with the magnitude of visual impairments. METHODS: A consecutive series of 851 patients at a low-vision clinic rated the importance of driving on a four-point scale. Those who gave nonzero importance ratings then rated driving difficulty on a five-point scale. Those who gave nonzero difficulty ratings then rated the difficulty of each of 21 driving tasks on a five-point scale. Visual acuity was measured with the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart, and contrast sensitivity was measured with the Pelli-Robson chart. Rasch analysis was used to test the validity and reliability of self-perceived driving ability estimates from difficulty ratings of tasks. RESULTS: Patients who rated driving as not important (41%) had worse visual acuity (logMAR = 0.88) and worse contrast sensitivity (log CS = 0.83) than did those who rated driving as extremely important (55%; logMAR = 0.62; log CS =1.03; multivariate analysis of variance [MANOVA]; P = 0.003). Self-perceived driving ability correlated negatively with the overall rating of driving difficulty (r = -0.69; P < 0.001) and with logMAR (r = -0.28; P < 0.001), and correlated positively with log CS (r = 0.35; P < 0.001). The most difficult driving tasks were navigating in parking ramps, parking in the correct space, seeing lane markings, and reading signs. The least-difficult driving tasks were seeing traffic and reading the speedometer. Rasch analysis confirmed instrument validity and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Low-vision patients appeared to devalue the goal of driving when visual impairments were more severe. Valid measures of self-perceived driving ability can be estimated from difficulty ratings of specific driving tasks.

The Activity Inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire.

PURPOSE: The Activity Inventory (AI) is an adaptive visual function questionnaire that consists of 459 Tasks nested under 50 Goals that in turn are nested under three Objectives. Visually impaired patients are asked to rate the importance of each Goal, the difficulty of Goals that have at least some importance, and the difficulty of Tasks that serve Goals that have both some importance and some difficulty. Consequently, each patient responds to an individually tailored set of questions that provides both a functional history and the data needed to estimate the patient's visual ability. The purpose of the present article is to test the hypothesis that all combinations of items in the AI, and by extension all visual function questionnaires, measure the same visual ability variable. METHODS: The AI was administered to 1880 consecutively-recruited low vision patients before their first visit to the low vision rehabilitation service. Of this group, 407 were also administered two other visual function questionnaires randomly chosen from among the Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADVS), National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ), 14-item Visual Functioning Index (VF-14), and Visual Activities Questionnaire (VAQ). Rasch analyses were performed on the responses to each VFQ, on all responses to the AI, and on responses to various subsets of items from the AI. RESULTS: The pattern of fit statistics for AI item and person measures suggested that the estimated visual ability variable is not unidimensional. Reading-related and other items requiring high visual resolution had smaller residual errors than expected and mobility-related items had larger residual errors than expected. The pattern of person measure residual errors could not be explained by the disorder diagnosis. When items were grouped into subsets representing four visual function domains (reading, mobility, visual motor, visual information), and separate person measures were estimated for each domain as well as for all items combined, visual ability was observed to be equivalent to the first principal component and accounted for 79% of the variance. However, confirmatory factor analysis showed that visual ability is a composite variable with at least two factors: one upon which mobility loads most heavily and the other upon which reading loads most heavily. These two factors can account for the pattern of residual errors. High product moment and intraclass correlations were observed when comparing different subsets of items within the AI and when comparing different VFQs. CONCLUSIONS: Visual ability is a composite variable with two factors; one most heavily influences reading function and the other most heavily influences mobility function. Subsets of items within the AI and different VFQs all measure the same visual ability variable.