Trial frame refraction versus autorefraction among new patients in a low-vision clinic.

PURPOSE: To determine the relationship between refractive error as measured by autorefraction and that measured by trial frame refraction among a sample of adults with vision impairment seen in a university-based low-vision clinic and to determine if autorefraction might be a suitable replacement for trial frame refraction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all new patients 19 years or older seen over an 18-month period was conducted and the following data collected: age, sex, primary ocular diagnosis, entering distance visual acuity, habitual correction, trial frame refraction, autorefraction, and distance visual acuity measured after trial frame refraction. Trial frame refraction and autorefraction were compared using paired t-tests, intraclass correlations, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Final analyses included 440 patients for whom both trial frame refraction and autorefraction data were available for the better eye. Participants were mostly female (59%) with a mean age of 68 years (SD = 20). Age-related macular degeneration was the most common etiology for vision impairment (44%). Values for autorefraction and trial frame refraction were statistically different, but highly correlated for the spherical equivalent power (r = 0.92), the cylinder power (r = 0.80) and overall blurring strength (0.89). Although the values of the cross-cylinders J(0) and J(45) were similar, they were poorly correlated (0.08 and 0.15, respectively). The range of differences in spherical equivalent power was large (-8.6 to 4.9). CONCLUSIONS: Autorefraction is highly correlated with trial frame refraction. Differences are sometimes substantial, making autorefraction an unsuitable substitute for trial frame refraction.

Use of prescribed optical devices in age-related macular degeneration.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prescribed optical device use in terms of frequency and perceived usefulness among people with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). We also sought to determine the tasks for which they were using their prescribed low vision device(s). METHODS: One hundred ninety-nine patients with AMD presenting for the first time to the low vision service were recruited from a university-based clinic. Prior to the low vision evaluation and device prescription, they completed the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire, and a general health questionnaire. The low vision evaluation included best-corrected Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity, MNREAD testing, microperimetry, prescription, and dispensing of optical low vision devices. Telephone follow-up interviews were conducted about device usage 1-week, 1-month, and 3-months postintervention. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one participants were prescribed low vision devices. Of them, 93% completed all 3 follow-up interviews. Intensive users (≥1 hours/day) of devices were similar in demographic and visual characteristics to non-intensive users (<1 hours/day), except for habitual reading acuity and speed as well as contrast sensitivity. Overall, device use increased slightly over 3 months of follow-up. Magnifiers were reported to be moderately-to-extremely useful by >80% of participants at all time points except the 1-month follow-up for hand magnifiers (75%). High plus spectacles were the least frequently prescribed device and rated as moderately-to-extremely useful by 70%, 74%, and 59% at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months, respectively. Most participants used their devices for leisure reading, followed by managing bills. Very few devices (n = 3, <1%) were not used at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AMD who are provided with prescribed optical low vision devices do use them and perceive them as useful, especially for leisure reading activities. High rates of usage were maintained over 3 month.

Efficient assessment of social problem-solving abilities in medical and rehabilitation settings: a Rasch analysis of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised.

The Social Problem Solving Inventory-Revised Scale (SPSI-R) has been shown to be a reliable and valid self-report measure of social problem-solving abilities. In busy medical and rehabilitation settings, a brief and efficient screening version with psychometric properties similar to the SPSI-R would have numerous benefits including decreased patient and caregiver assessment burden and administration/scoring time. Thus, the aim of the current study was to identify items from the SPSI-R that would provide for a more efficient assessment of global social problem-solving abilities. This study consisted of three independent samples: 121 persons in low-vision rehabilitation (M age=71 years old, SD=15.53), 301 persons living with diabetes mellitus (M age=58, and SD=14.85), and 131 family caregivers of persons with severe disabilities (M age=56 years old, SD=12.15). All persons completed a version of the SPSI-R, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Using Rasch scaling of the SPSI-R short-form, we identified a subset of 10 items that reflected the five-component model of social problem solving. The 10 items were separately validated on the sample of persons living with diabetes mellitus and the sample of family caregivers of persons with severe disabilities. Results indicate that the efficient 10-item version, analyzed separately for all three samples, demonstrated good reliability and validity characteristics similar to the established SPSI-R short form. The 10-item version of the SPSI-R represents a brief, effective way in which clinicians and researchers in busy health care settings can quickly assess global problem-solving abilities and identify those persons at-risk for complicated adjustment. Implications for the assessment of social problem-solving abilities are discussed.