Confidence in low vision rehabilitation and attitudes towards further learning: A survey of UK optometrists.

PURPOSE: Optometrists are well positioned to help expand low vision (LV) services and improve their availability and accessibility. Determinants of participation in LV service provision must be well understood to facilitate successful service expansion. This survey aimed to investigate optometrists' professional confidence in the delivery of LV services and attitudes towards further learning. METHODS: An online survey was emailed to a sample of College of Optometrists members. Respondents rated their confidence in different areas of core optometric practice; confidence in LV was compared with confidence in other areas. Respondents also rated their confidence in undertaking multiple tasks involved in LV service delivery and in routine optometric practice; confidence was compared between optometrists who do and do not work in a LV service. Attitudes towards learning more about assessing and supporting patients with a vision impairment (VI) were recorded. RESULTS: The survey received 451 recorded responses (15.1% response rate). Optometrists who do not work in a LV service reported significantly lower confidence in LV than in other areas of core optometric practice, whereas optometrists who work in a LV service reported significantly higher confidence in LV than in other areas. Additionally, optometrists who do not work in a LV service reported significantly lower confidence in all tasks involved in LV service delivery than optometrists who work in a LV service (p < 0.001 for all tasks). Approximately 80% of respondents were interested in learning more about assessing and supporting patients with a VI. CONCLUSIONS: Optometrists who do not work in a LV service have relatively low confidence in LV, which could contribute to low motivation to participate in LV service provision. There is sizeable interest in learning more about assessing and supporting patients with a VI, which could help to increase motivation to participate in LV service provision.

Risk of Falls and Fractures in Individuals With Cataract, Age-Related Macular Degeneration, or Glaucoma.

Importance: Three leading disease causes of age-related visual loss are cataract, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and glaucoma. Although all 3 eye diseases have been implicated with falls and fracture risk, evidence is mixed, with the contribution of different eye diseases being uncertain. Objective: To examine whether people with cataract, AMD, or glaucoma have higher risks of falls or fractures than those without. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a population-based study in England using routinely collected electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and Aurum primary care databases with linked hospitalization and mortality records from 2007 to 2020. Participants were people with cataract, AMD, or glaucoma matched to comparators (1:5) by age, sex, and general practice. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to June 2023. Exposures: For each eye disease, we estimated the risk of falls or fractures using separate multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Main Outcomes: Two primary outcomes were incident falls and incident fractures derived from general practice, hospital, and mortality records. Secondary outcomes were incident fractures of specific body sites. Results: A total of 410 476 people with cataract, 75 622 with AMD, and 90 177 with glaucoma were matched (1:5) to 2 034 194 (no cataract), 375 548 (no AMD), and 448 179 (no glaucoma) comparators. The mean (SD) age was 73.8 (11.0) years, 79.4 (9.4) years, and 69.8 (13.1) years for participants with cataract, AMD, or glaucoma, respectively. Compared with comparators, there was an increased risk of falls in those with cataract (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.35-1.38), AMD (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.23-1.27), and glaucoma (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.35-1.41). Likewise for fractures, there were increased risks in all eye diseases, with an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.27-1.30) in the cataract cohort, an HR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.15-1.21) for AMD, and an HR of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.27-1.35) for glaucoma. Site-specific fracture analyses revealed increases in almost all body sites (including hip, spine, forearm, skull or facial bones, pelvis, ribs or sternum, and lower leg fractures) compared with matched comparators. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study support recognition that people with 1 or more of these eye diseases are at increased risk of both falls and fractures. They may benefit from improved advice, access, and referrals to falls prevention services.

Does an iPad fixation disparity test give equivalent results to the Mallett near fixation disparity test? / ¿Puede aportar la prueba de disparidad de fijación en iPad unos resultados equivalentes a la prueba de disparidad de fijación de cerca de la unidad de Mallett?

BACKGROUND: Various instruments have been developed to measure aligning prism, the prism that eliminates a fixation disparity (associated heterophoria). This includes the established Mallett near vision unit and recently developed Thomson Vision Toolbox on the iPad. With no previous research investigating the agreement between these instruments, practitioners may question if they can be used interchangeably. METHODS: 80 participants underwent near vision testing with the Mallett unit and iPad fixation disparity test. Data were analysed in four ways to investigate the agreement of the two instruments. RESULTS: Many participants reported no fixation disparity (horizontally 46.25%, vertically 82.5%), or non-significant aligning prism (horizontally 70%, vertically 97.5%), on both instruments. The iPad revealed a larger range of aligning prism results horizontally, 6∆ base out to 15∆ base in; the Mallett unit produced a larger range of results vertically, 1∆ base up to 3.5∆ base down. More participants required a significant aligning prism on the Mallett unit horizontally and vertically. Wilcoxon signed rank analysis found that the difference in aligning prism was not statistically significant (p = 0.357 horizontally, p = 0.236 vertically), but 95% limits of agreement revealed clinically significant differences between the instruments. CONCLUSION: Although the measured differences between the instruments are not significant in a Wilcoxon analysis, a Bland & Altman approach shows them to be in some cases clinically unacceptable, therefore the instruments should not be used interchangeably. Previous research indicates that the Mallett unit performs reasonably well at detecting symptomatic individuals and determining a prismatic correction that is likely to be helpful. Further research is required to determine the performance of the iPad test in these functions and to assess the reproducibility of both instruments

ANTECEDENTES: Se han desarrollado diversos instrumentos para medir el prisma de alineamiento, que es el prisma que elimina la disparidad de fijación (heteroforia asociada). Entre estos instrumentos se incluyen la unidad de visión de cerca de Mallett y la recientemente desarrollada Thomson Vision Toolbox en el iPad. Como no existe investigación previa acerca del acuerdo entre estos instrumentos, los clínicos pueden cuestionarse si pueden usarse ambos tests de forma intercambiable. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una prueba de visión de cerca a 80 participantes, utilizando la unidad de Mallett y la prueba iPad de disparidad de fijación. Los datos fueron analizados de cuatro modos, para evaluar el acuerdo entre ambos instrumentos. RESULTADOS: Muchos participantes reportaron ausencia de disparidad de fijación (horizontalmente 46,25%, verticalmente 82,5%), o prisma de alineamiento no significativo (horizontalmente 70%, verticalmente 97,5%), con ambos instrumentos. El iPad reveló un mayor rango de resultados de prisma de alineamiento horizontalmente, 6∆ base externa con respecto a 15∆ base interna, y la unidad de Mallett produjo un rango mayor de resultados verticalmente, 1∆ base superior con respecto a 3,5∆ base inferior. Muchos participantes requirieron un prisma de alineamiento significativo en la unidad de Mallett horizontalmente y verticalmente. La prueba de rango con signo de Wilcoxon encontró que la diferencia en cuanto a prisma de alineamiento no era estadísticamente significativa (p = 0,357 horizontalmente, p = 0,236 verticalmente), pero el 95% de los límites de acuerdo revelaron diferencias clínicamente significativas entre los dos instrumentos. CONCLUSIÓN: Aunque las diferencias de las mediciones entre ambos instrumentos no son significativas con el analisis de Wilcoxon, los analisis con Bland & Altman muestran algunas casos clinicamente significativos, y por tanto los instrumentos no deberían usarse de manera intercambiable. La investigación previa indica que la unidad de Mallett tiene un rendimiento razonablemente bueno para detectar los individuos sintomáticos, y determinar una corrección prismática que pueda resultar útil. Es necesaria más investigación para determinar el rendimiento de la prueba iPad en estas funciones y para analizar la reproducibilidad de ambos instrumentos