Outcomes of Telerehabilitation Versus In-Office Training With Magnification Devices for Low Vision: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: An evidence basis is lacking but needed to compare reading ability outcomes after magnification device training remotely via telerehabilitation versus in office. Methods: A multicenter randomized controlled trial at academic centers and vision rehabilitation private practices randomized 61 visually impaired adults to telerehabilitation or in-office training 1 to 4 months after dispensing new portable electronic, hand-held, or stand optical magnifiers. Telerehabilitation included loaner equipment for Zoom videoconferencing with remote control access software. Using a multilevel regression model, changes in Activity Inventory responses using Rasch analysis estimated reading ability in dimensionless log odds units (logits) (0.14-logit change corresponds with ability change expected from a one-line change in visual acuity). Results: Across 47 participants who completed the trial, reading ability with new magnifiers improved significantly by 0.61 logits on average (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.86; P < 0.001) from baseline to 1 month, and by an additional 0.44 logits on average (95% CI, 0.19-0.69; P < 0.001) from 1 to 4months (i.e., after magnifier training), with very similar significant findings for both telerehabilitation (n = 29; mean improvement = 0.44 logits; 95% CI, 0.08-0.80; P = 0.018) and in-office training (n = 18; mean improvement = 0.43 logits; 95% CI, 0.15-0.71; P = .003), and no significant difference between randomized groups across both follow-ups (95% CI, -0.43 to 0.61; P = .73). Vision, demographics, and health factors were nonsignificantly related to reading ability changes from 1 to 4 months. Conclusions: Reading ability improved after the provision of newly dispensed magnifiers, with further improvements following additional magnifier training via either telerehabilitation or in-office usual care. Translational Relevance: These findings provide support for the use of telerehabilitation to enhance reading ability with newly prescribed magnifiers as an alternative modality of care delivery.

Value of Handheld Optical Illuminated Magnifiers for Sustained Silent Reading by Visually Impaired Adults.

SIGNIFICANCE: Vision rehabilitation providers tend to recommend handheld, illuminated optical magnifiers for short-duration spot reading tasks, but this study indicates that they are also a viable option to improve sustained, continuous text reading (e.g., books or magazines), especially for visually impaired adults who read slowly with only spectacle-based near correction. PURPOSE: The utility of handheld optical magnifiers for sustained silent reading tasks involving normal-sized continuous text could be a valuable indication that is not recognized by vision rehabilitation providers and patients. METHODS: Handheld, illuminated optical magnifiers were dispensed to 29 visually impaired adults who completed the sustained silent reading test by phone at baseline without the new magnifier and 1 month after using the magnifier. Reading speed in words per minute (wpm) was calculated from the time to read each page and then averaged across up to 10 pages or determined for the fastest read page (maximum). RESULTS: From baseline without the magnifier to 1 month with the magnifier, there was a significant improvement in mean reading speed by 14 wpm (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 24; P = .02) and for maximum reading speed by 18 wpm (95% CI, 5.4 to 30; P = .005) on average across participants. Participants who had slower baseline reading speeds without the magnifier demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean and maximum reading speeds on average with the magnifier (95% CI, 8 to 32 [ P = .003]; 95% CI, 4 to 36 [ P = .02]). A significantly greater number of pages were read with the new magnifier than without it (Wilcoxon z = -2.5; P = .01). A significantly greater number of pages were read with the magnifier by participants who read fewer pages at baseline (95% CI, 0.57 to 5.6; P = .02) or had greater improvements in mean reading speed (95% CI, 0.57 to 5.6; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Many visually impaired adults read more quickly and/or read a greater number of pages after using a new magnifier for a month than compared to without it. The largest gains occurred among those with more difficulty at baseline, indicating the potential to improve reading rates with magnifiers for those with greater deficits.

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

BACKGROUND: Low vision affects over 300 million people worldwide and can compromise both activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitative training and vision assistive equipment (VAE) may help, but some visually impaired people have limited resources to attend in-person visits to rehabilitation clinics to be trained to learn to use VAE. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through access to remote, internet-based consultation (telerehabilitation). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of telerehabilitation with face-to-face (e.g. in-office or inpatient) vision rehabilitation services for improving vision-related quality of life and near reading ability in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives were to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for VAE devices, and patient satisfaction ratings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any language restriction or study design filter in the electronic searches; however, we restricted the searches from 1980 onwards because the internet was not introduced to the public until 1982. We last searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, and PubMed on 14 September 2021, and the trial registries on 16 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants diagnosed with low vision had received vision rehabilitation services remotely from a human provider using internet, web-based technology compared with an approach involving in-person consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved by the searches of the electronic databases and then full-text articles for eligible studies. Two review authors independently abstracted data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one RCT/CCT that indirectly met our inclusion criteria, and two ongoing trials that met our inclusion criteria. The included trial had an overall high risk of bias. We did not conduct a quantitative analysis since multiple controlled trials were not identified.  The single included trial of 57 participants utilized a parallel-group design. It compared 30 hours of either personalized low vision training through telerehabilitation with a low vision therapist (the experimental group) with the self-training standard provided by eSight using the eSkills User Guide that was self-administered by the participants at home for one hour per day for 30 days (the comparison group). The trial investigators found a similar direction of effects for both groups for vision-related quality of life and satisfaction at two weeks, three months, and six months. A greater proportion of participants in the comparison group had abandoned or discontinued use of the eSight Eyewear at two weeks than those in the telerehabilitation group, but discontinuance rates were similar between groups at one month and three months. We rated the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes as very low due to high risk of bias in randomization processes and missing outcome data and imprecision.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included trial found similar efficacy between telerehabilitation with a therapist and an active control intervention of self-guided training in mostly younger to middle-aged adults with low vision who received a new wearable electronic aid. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, the two ongoing studies, when completed, may provide further evidence of the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.

Telerehabilitation Training to Facilitate Improved Reading Ability with New Magnification Devices for Low Vision.

SIGNIFICANCE: This pilot study provides some insight about the potential benefits of telerehabilitation training to improve the reading ability of adults with low vision using magnifiers, to spur future work with larger groups. Telerehabilitation services can be implemented clinically to facilitate access to follow-up care for low vision. PURPOSE: A recent Cochrane systematic review revealed that there are no published visual function outcomes for telerehabilitation with handheld magnification devices for low vision; thus, this study aimed to provide evidence for its preliminary efficacy. METHODS: One to 4 months after receiving a new magnification device (i.e., handheld or stand optical magnifier or portable electronic magnifier), 14 adult low vision patients (with any visual acuity level or ocular diagnosis) received two training sessions at home via telerehabilitation with their vision rehabilitation provider located remotely in-office. Telerehabilitation included a loaner smartphone for Zoom videoconferencing with remote control access software. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test was administered during each of the telerehabilitation sessions to assess near reading (acuity and speed) with the new magnifier. RESULTS: Mean reading acuity with the magnifier was 0.17 logMAR across subjects before training at telerehabilitation session 1, which significantly improved to 0.09 on average a few weeks later at telerehabilitation session 2 (95%confidence interval, -0.001 to -0.16; P = .047). Logarithm reading speed with the magnifier for the reading acuity level at session 1 improved significantly by 0.18 log words per minute on average for the same text size at session 2 (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.29; P = .002). With the magnifier at session 2, 71% of participants gained at least 0.1 log unit in reading acuity, and half improved by >0.01 in log reading speed; all participants with increased reading speed also improved in reading acuity ( P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data support that telerehabilitation can enhance reading ability and efficiency with newly prescribed magnifiers as an alternative option to in-office vision rehabilitation.

Acceptability of Telerehabilitation for Magnification Devices for the Visually Impaired Using Various Approaches to Facilitate Accessibility.

Purpose: We examined different methods to reduce the burden of accessing technology for videoconferencing during telerehabilitation for magnification devices for the visually impaired. Methods: During telerehabilitation studies over the past 5 years, vision rehabilitation providers assessed and gave training to visually impaired participants with newly dispensed magnification devices at home who connected to Zoom videoconferencing via loaner tablets or smartphones with assistance from (phase 1; n = 10) investigators by phone, (phase 2; n = 11) local Lions Club volunteers in participants' homes, or (phase 3; n = 24) remote access control software in a randomized controlled trial with 13 usual care controls who received in-office training. All participants 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 (96%) compared to phase 1 (60%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-12.5; P = 0.03) or phase 2 (55%; 95% CI, 1.8-188; P = 0.01). The majority indicated telerehabilitation was as accurate as in person (68%), they were comfortable with telerehabilitation (91%) and interested in a future session (83%), and their magnifier use improved (79%), with no significant differences in these responses between phases (all P > 0.10), including comparisons of participants randomized to telerehabilitation or in-office training in phase 3 who reported similar overall satisfaction levels (P = 0.84). Conclusions: Participants across all phases reported high levels of acceptance for telerehabilitation, with least interference from technology using remote access control in phase 3. Translational Relevance: With accommodations for accessibility to videoconferencing technology, telerehabilitation for magnification devices can be a feasible, acceptable, and valuable option in countries with resources to support the technology.

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

BACKGROUND: Low vision affects over 300 million people worldwide and can compromise both activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitative training and vision assistive equipment (VAE) may help, but some visually impaired people have limited resources to attend in-person visits at rehabilitation clinics to receive training to learn to use VAE. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through remote, Internet-based consultation (i.e. telerehabilitation). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of telerehabilitation with face-to-face (e.g. in-office or inpatient) vision rehabilitation services for improving vision-related quality of life and near reading ability in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives were to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for VAE devices, and patient satisfaction ratings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any language restriction or study design filter in the electronic searches; however, we restricted the searches from 1980 onwards because the Internet was not introduced to the public until 1982. We last searched the electronic databases on 24 June 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants diagnosed with low vision were undergoing low vision rehabilitation using an Internet, web-based technology compared with an approach involving in-person consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and then full-text articles against the eligibility criteria. We planned to have two review authors independently abstract data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two ongoing studies, but did not find any completed RCTs and CCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review. We did not conduct a quantitative analysis. We discussed review articles on telemedicine for facilitating communication with elderly individuals or for providing remote ophthalmological care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any evidence from RCTs or CCTs on the efficacy of using telerehabilitation for remote delivery of rehabilitation services to individuals with low vision. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, the two ongoing studies, when completed, may provide evidence in understanding the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.

Feasibility of Telerehabilitation for Low Vision: Satisfaction Ratings by Providers and Patients.

SIGNIFICANCE: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility and acceptability of telerehabilitation between a provider in-office and a low vision patient at home as an approach to provide follow-up care to improve reading ability with magnification devices and that would help overcome barriers related to transportation and paucity of providers. PURPOSE: A recent systematic review found no publications with results on the topic of telerehabilitation for low vision. Our goal was to perform the initial steps to develop, administer, refine, and evaluate components required to deliver follow-up low vision telerehabilitation services. METHODS: Three low vision providers (ophthalmic technician or optometrist) conducted telerehabilitation sessions from their office with 10 visually impaired older adults in their homes, who recently received a handheld magnification device for reading and self-reported difficulty with returning for follow-up training at their provider's office. All except one participant had never used videoconferencing before our study, and three had never used the Internet. Participants and providers rated the use of loaner hardware devices (i.e., tablets, MiFi mobile hotspot) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, secure videoconference services during telerehabilitation sessions at which participants read MNREAD cards and received feedback on magnifier use. RESULTS: Providers reported little to no difficulty with evaluating participants' reading speed, reading accuracy, and working distance with their magnifier. Both providers and participants rated video quality as excellent to good. Audio quality ratings were variable, generally related to signal strength or technical issues during some sessions. All participants agreed that they were satisfied and comfortable receiving telerehabilitation and evaluation via videoconferencing. Eight of 10 reported that their magnifier use improved after telerehabilitation. All except one reported that they were very interested in receiving telerehabilitation services again if their visual needs change. CONCLUSIONS: Positive feedback from both participants and providers in this pilot study supports the feasibility, acceptability, and potential value of low vision telerehabilitation.

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

BACKGROUND: Low vision affects over 300 million people worldwide and can compromise both activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitative training and vision assistive equipment (VAE) may help, but some visually impaired people have limited resources to attend in-person visits at rehabilitation clinics. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through remote, Internet-based consultation (i.e., telerehabilitation). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of telerehabilitation with face-to-face (e.g., in-office or inpatient) vision rehabilitation services for improving vision-related quality of life and reading speed in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives are to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for visual assistive equipment devices, and patient satisfaction ratings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1980 to June 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2015), PubMed (1980 to June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any language restriction or study design filter in the electronic searches; however, we restricted the searches from 1980 onwards because the Internet was not introduced to the public until 1982. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants were diagnosed with low vision and were undergoing low vision rehabilitation using an Internet, web-based technology compared with an approach based on in-person consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and then full-text articles against the eligibility criteria. We planned to have two authors independently abstract data from included studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any study that met the inclusion criteria for this review and, hence, we did not conduct a quantitative analysis. As a part of the background, we discussed review articles on telemedicine for facilitating communication with elderly individuals or for providing remote ophthalmological care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any evidence on whether the use of telerehabilitation is feasible or a potentially viable means to remotely deliver rehabilitation services to individuals with low vision. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, there is a need for future pilot studies and subsequent clinical trials to explore the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: Our goal is to systematically review the literature on telerehabilitation's effectiveness for improving vision-related quality of life and/ or reading speed compared to face-to-face (e.g., in-office or inpatient) low vision rehabilitation services in patients with low vision or visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives are to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, VAE device abandonment rates, and/or patient satisfaction ratings in the same studies.