Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Ophthalmic Epidemiol ; 15(2): 84-91, 2008.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18432491

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT) developed an outpatient low-vision programme for patients with macular diseases providing low-vision rehabilitation comparable to VA inpatient blind rehabilitation centres (BRCs). This programme targets veterans who do not need or chose not to participate in a comprehensive inpatient blind rehabilitation programme. We examined costs and consequences using veterans in LOVIT and comparable veterans in an inpatient BRC. METHODS: We compared costs and consequences between treatment patients who participated in LOVIT, a two-site randomized clinical trial, and a sample of comparable patients who received treatment at a VA inpatient BRC. We measured consequences as the change in functional visual ability from baseline to follow-up (LOVIT: 4 months after randomization; BRC: 3 months after discharge) using the VA Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VA LV VFQ-48). RESULTS: There were 55 LOVIT and 121 BRC patients for our analyses. Average costs were $38,627.3 higher for BRC patients ($5,054.4 +/- $404.7 SD for LOVIT vs. $43,681.7 +/- $8,853.6 SD for BRC, p < 0.0001). Thus, the BRC cost $38,627.3 per patient more than the LOVIT programme (95% CI: $17,414 to $273,482). There was a greater improvement in overall visual ability, mobility, and visual motor skill scores for BRC patients; however, there was no significant difference in improvement in reading ability or visual information processing scores. CONCLUSIONS: As VA increases outpatient blind rehabilitation services, LOVIT provides a model for expanding outpatient low-vision rehabilitation services for veterans at substantially lower costs than current inpatient BRC services.


Subject(s)
Blindness/economics , Blindness/rehabilitation , Macular Degeneration/economics , Program Evaluation/economics , Rehabilitation Centers/economics , United States Department of Veterans Affairs/economics , Veterans , Activities of Daily Living , Aged , Blindness/etiology , Costs and Cost Analysis/economics , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Macular Degeneration/complications , Male , Program Evaluation/methods , Retrospective Studies , United States , Visual Acuity
2.
Clin Trials ; 4(6): 650-60, 2007.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18042574

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Visual impairment is a major public health problem. Vision rehabilitation programs have the potential to restore independence and improve quality of life for persons with permanent vision loss, and few have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials. PURPOSE: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Low Vision Intervention Trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a new outpatient low vision rehabilitation program. METHODS: 126 patients with moderate and severe vision loss due to macular diseases are randomized to low vision treatment in an outpatient setting or a usual care control group at two VA facilities in Hines, Illinois, and Salisbury, North Carolina. The primary outcome is the change in visual reading ability from baseline to four months measured with the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire-48 (VA LV VFQ-48). Secondary outcomes compare the mean change in visual ability measured with the VA LV VFQ-48 (overall ability, mobility, visual information processing, visual motor skills) for the treatment and control groups. Costs and cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment are evaluated. RESULTS: The low vision rehabilitation setting, use of a waiting list control group to address ethical issues, development of the treatment protocol, development of a vision function questionnaire for patients to self-report the difficulty they experience performing daily activities, and the use of Rasch analysis to develop and estimate this outcome measure are described. LIMITATIONS: If the new low vision rehabilitation program is proven effective, studies will be needed to determine which of the multiple aspects of the intervention are necessary and sufficient. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges of conducting clinical trials in a rehabilitation setting and use of a waiting list (deferred treatment) control group extend beyond LOVIT. The design and methods of LOVIT may be applicable to other trials of rehabilitation services and to outcomes for which reliable and valid measurement tools must be developed.


Subject(s)
Research Design , Research , Veterans , Vision, Low/rehabilitation , Activities of Daily Living , Humans , Illinois , North Carolina , Program Evaluation , Quality of Life
3.
J Rehabil Res Dev ; 42(4): 471-86, 2005.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16320143

ABSTRACT

This study compared the effectiveness of the ITT Night Vision Viewer with the Wide Angle Mobility Lamp (WAML) as low-vision mobility devices for people experiencing night blindness due to retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Both engineering bench testing and functional evaluations were used in the assessments. Engineering evaluations were conducted for (1) consistency of the manufacturer's specifications, (2) ergonomic characteristics, (3) modifications of devices, and (4) pedestrian safety issues. Twenty-seven patients with RP conducted rehabilitation evaluations with each device that included both clinical and functional tests. Both devices improved nighttime travel for people with night blindness as compared with nighttime travel with no device. Overall, the WAML provided better travel efficiency-equivalent to that measured in daytime. Recommendations have been developed on ergonomic factors for both devices. Although some participants preferred the ITT Night Vision Viewer, overall most participants performed better with the WAML.


Subject(s)
Lenses/classification , Night Blindness/rehabilitation , Retinitis Pigmentosa/complications , Sensory Aids/classification , Vision, Low/rehabilitation , Adult , Equipment Design , Ergonomics , Eye Protective Devices/classification , Female , Humans , Locomotion , Male , Middle Aged , Mobility Limitation , Night Blindness/etiology , Reference Values , Vision, Low/etiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...