ABSTRACT
Purpose: Eccentric viewing training for macular disease has been performed for > 40 years, but no large studies including control groups have assessed the benefits of this training. The EFFECT (Eccentric Fixation From Enhanced Clinical Training) study is a large randomized controlled trial of 2 types of eccentric viewing training. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Participants: Two hundred adults with age-related macular disease. Methods: Participants were randomized to either of the following: (1) a control group; (2) a group receiving supervised reading support; (3) a group receiving 3 sessions of training to optimize the use of their own preferred retinal locus; or (4) a group receiving 3 sessions of biofeedback training of a theoretically optimal trained retinal locus. All participants received standard low-vision rehabilitation. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was patient-reported visual task ability measured on the Activity Inventory instrument at goal level. Secondary outcomes included reading performance and fixation stability. Results: There was no difference between groups on change in task ability (F(3,174) = 1.48, P = 0.22) or on any of the secondary outcome measures. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity fell in all groups, suggesting that disease progression outweighed any benefit of training. Conclusions: Eccentric viewing training did not systematically improve task ability, reading performance, or fixation stability in this study. Our results do not support the routine use of eccentric viewing training for people with progressing age-related macular disease, although this training may help people with end-stage disease. Rehabilitation of an inherently progressive condition is challenging. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 and became a global health crisis with devastating impacts. This scoping review maps the key findings of research about the pandemic that has operationalized intersectional research methods around the world. It also tracks how these studies have engaged with methodological tenets of oppression, comparison, relationality, complexity, and deconstruction. METHODS: Our search resulted in 14,487 articles, 5164 of which were duplicates, and 9297 studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. In total, 14 articles were included in this review. We used thematic analysis to analyse themes within this work and Misra et al. (2021) intersectional research framework to analyse the uptake of intersectional methods within such studies. RESULTS: The research related to the COVID-19 pandemic globally is paying attention to issues around the financial impacts of the pandemic, discrimination, gendered impacts, impacts of and on social ties, and implications for mental health. We also found strong uptake of centring research in the context of oppression, but less attention is being paid to comparison, relationality, complexity, and deconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show the importance of intersectional research within public health policy formation, as well as room for greater rigour in the use of intersectional methods.
