Comparative effectiveness between two types of head-mounted magnification modes using a smartphone-based virtual display.

SIGNIFICANCE: This work shows the benefits of using two different magnification strategies to improve the reading ability of low-vision patients using a head-mounted technology. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of two magnification strategies in a head-mounted virtual reality display. METHODS: Eighty-eight eligible low-vision subjects were randomized into two arms: (1) the full-field magnification display or (2) the virtual bioptic telescope mode. Subjects completed baseline testing and received training on how to use the device properly and then took the device home for a 2- to 4-week intervention period. An adaptive rating scale questionnaire (Activity Inventory) was administered before and after the intervention (home trial) period to measure the effect of the system. A Simulator Sickness Questionnaire was also administered. Baseline and follow-up results were analyzed using Rasch analysis to assess overall effectiveness of each magnification mode for various functional domain categories. RESULTS: Both magnification modes showed a positive effect for reading, visual information, and the overall goals functional domain categories, with only reading reaching statistical significance after correction for multiple comparisons. However, there were no significant between-group differences between the two modes. The results of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire showed that the magnification modes of the head-mounted display device were overall well tolerated among low-vision users. CONCLUSIONS: Both the full-field and virtual bioptic magnification strategies were effective in significantly improving functional vision outcomes for self-reported reading ability.

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.

Approaching rehabilitation in patients with advanced glaucoma.

Vision loss from advanced glaucoma is currently irreversible and impairs functional visual ability to effectively perform everyday tasks in a number of distinct functional domains. Vision rehabilitation strategies have been demonstrated to be effective in low vision populations and should be utilized in persons with advanced glaucoma to reduce disability and improve quality of life. Initial challenges to rehabilitation include an incomplete understanding of vision rehabilitation by the physician and patient, motivation to integrate rehabilitation into the plan of care, and availability of suitable providers to deliver this care. Physicians, working with well-trained vision rehabilitation providers can maximize function in important visual domains customized to the patient based on their needs, specific complaints, severity/pattern of visual damage, and comorbidities. Potential rehabilitative strategies to be considered for reading impairment include spectacle correction, visual assistive equipment, and sensory substitution, while potential strategies to facilitate driving in those deemed safe to do so include refractive correction, lens design, building confidence, restriction of driving to safer conditions, and avoiding situations where cognitive load is high. Mobility is frequently disrupted in advanced glaucoma, and can be addressed through careful distance refraction, behavior modification, home modification, mobility aids, walking assistance (i.e., sighted guide techniques), and smartphone/wearable technologies. Visual motor complaints are best addressed through optimization of lighting/contrast, sensory substitution, IADL training, and education. Special rehabilitative concerns may arise in children, where plans must be coordinated with schools, and working adults, where patients should be aware of their rights to accommodations to facilitate specific job tasks.

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.

Caring for Older Adults With Vision Impairment and Dementia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dementia and vision impairment (VI) are common among older adults but little is known about caregiving in this context. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative survey of Medicare beneficiaries, linked to their family/unpaid helpers from the National Study of Caregiving. Vision impairment was defined as self-reported blindness or difficulty with distance/near vision. Probable dementia was based on survey report, interviews, and cognitive tests. Our outcomes included hours of care provided, and number of valued activities (scored 0-4) affected by caregiving, per month. RESULTS: Among 1,776 caregivers, 898 (55.1%, weighted) assisted older adults without dementia or VI, 450 (21.9%) with dementia only, 224 (13.0%) with VI only, and 204 (10.0%) with dementia and VI. In fully adjusted negative binomial regression analyses, caregivers of individuals with dementia and VI spent 1.7 times as many hours (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-2.2) providing care than caregivers of those without either impairment; however, caregivers of individuals with dementia only (95% CI = 1.1-1.6) and VI only (95% CI = 1.1-1.6) spent 1.3 times more hours. Additionally, caregivers of individuals with dementia and VI had 3.2 times as many valued activities affected (95% CI = 2.2-4.6), while caregivers of dementia only and VI only reported 1.9 times (95% CI = 1.4-2.6) and 1.3 times (95% CI = 0.9-1.8) more activities affected, respectively. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results suggest that caring for older adults with VI involves similar time demands as caring for older adults with dementia, but that participation impacts are greater when caring for older adults with both dementia and VI.

Accompaniment to healthcare visits: the impact of sensory impairment.

BACKGROUND: Millions of older adults in the United States experience hearing, vision, and dual sensory impairment (concurring hearing and vision impairment) yet little research exists on their needs in interactions with the healthcare system. This piece aims to determine the use of accompaniment in healthcare interactions by persons with sensory impairment. METHODS: These cross-sectional analyses included data from the 2015 Medicare Current Beneficiaries Survey and survey weighting provided by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Adjusted odds of reporting accompaniment to healthcare visits and given reasons for accompaniment among United States Medicare beneficiaries with self-reported sensory impairment (hearing, vision, and dual sensory impairment) were examined. RESULTS: After excluding observations with missing data, 10,748 Medicare beneficiaries remained representing a 46 million total weighted nationally representative sample, of which 88.9% reported no sensory impairment, 5.52% reported hearing impairment, 3.56% reported vision impairment, and 0.93% reported dual sensory impairment. Those with vision impairment and dual sensory impairment had 2.139 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.605-2.850) and 2.703 (CI = 1.549-4.718) times the odds of reporting accompaniment to healthcare visits relative to those without sensory impairment. A secondary analysis suggests communication needs as the primary reason for accompaniment among persons with hearing loss, while those with vision impairment were more likely to indicate transportation needs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare accompaniment is common for persons with sensory loss and healthcare systems should consider accommodations for and leveraging accompaniment to improve healthcare for persons with sensory impairments. In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, as hospitals limit visitors to reduce the spread of infection, arrangements should be made to ensure that the communication and transportation needs of those with sensory impairment are not neglected.

Preliminary Evaluation of Two Digital Image Processing Strategies for Head-Mounted Magnification for Low Vision Patients.

PURPOSE: In an observational clinical outcome study, we tested the effectiveness and use of the combination of two innovative approaches to magnification: a virtual bioptic telescope and a virtual projection screen, implemented with digital image processing in a head-mounted display (HMD) equipped with a high-resolution video camera and head trackers. METHODS: We recruited 30 participants with best-corrected visual acuity <20/100 in the better-seeing eye and bilateral central scotomas. Participants were trained on the HMD system, then completed a 7- to 10-day in-home trial. The Activity Inventory was administered before and after the home trial to measure the effect of system use on self-reported visual function. A simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) and a system-use survey were administered. Rasch analysis was used to assess outcomes. RESULTS: Significant improvements were seen in functional ability measures estimated from goal difficulty ratings (Cohen's d = 0.79, P < 0.001), and reading (d = 1.28, P < 0.001) and visual information (d = 1.11, P < 0.001) tasks. There was no improvement in patient-reported visual motor function or mobility. One participant had moderately severe discomfort symptoms after SSQ item calibration. The average patient rating of the system's use was 7.14/10. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the system resulted in functional vision improvements in reading and visual information processing. Lack of improvement in mobility and visual motor function is most likely due to limited field of view, poor depth perception, and lack of binocular disparity. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: We determine if these new image processing approaches to magnification are beneficial to low vision patients performing everyday activities.

Low Vision Enhancement with Head-mounted Video Display Systems: Are We There Yet?

SIGNIFICANCE: Head-mounted video display systems and image processing as a means of enhancing low vision are ideas that have been around for more than 20 years. Recent developments in virtual and augmented reality technology and software have opened up new research opportunities that will lead to benefits for low vision patients. Since the Visionics low vision enhancement system (LVES), the first head-mounted video display LVES, was engineered 20 years ago, various other devices have come and gone with a recent resurgence of the technology over the past few years. In this article, we discuss the history of the development of LVESs, describe the current state of available technology by outlining existing systems, and explore future innovation and research in this area. Although LVESs have now been around for more than two decades, there is still much that remains to be explored. With the growing popularity and availability of virtual reality and augmented reality technologies, we can now integrate these methods within low vision rehabilitation to conduct more research on customized contrast-enhancement strategies, image motion compensation, image-remapping strategies, and binocular disparity, all while incorporating eye-tracking capabilities. Future research should use this available technology and knowledge to learn more about the visual system in the low vision patient and extract this new information to create prescribable vision enhancement solutions for the visually impaired individual.

Functional Outcomes of the Low Vision Depression Prevention Trial in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of behavioral activation (BA) plus low vision rehabilitation with an occupational therapist (OT-LVR) with supportive therapy (ST) on visual function in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods: Single-masked, attention-controlled, randomized clinical trial with AMD patients with subsyndromal depressive symptoms (n = 188). All subjects had two outpatient low vision rehabilitation optometry visits, then were randomized to in-home BA + OT-LVR or ST. Behavioral activation is a structured behavioral treatment aiming to increase adaptive behaviors and achieve valued goals. Supportive therapy is a nondirective, psychological treatment that provides emotional support and controls for attention. Functional vision was assessed with the activity inventory (AI) in which participants rate the difficulty level of goals and corresponding tasks. Participants were assessed at baseline and 4 months. Results: Improvements in functional vision measures were seen in both the BA + OT-LVR and ST groups at the goal level (d = 0.71; d = 0.56 respectively). At the task level, BA + OT-LVR patients showed more improvement in reading, inside-the-home tasks and outside-the-home tasks, when compared to ST patients. The greatest effects were seen in the BA + OT-LVR group in subjects with a visual acuity ≥20/70 (d = 0.360 reading; d = 0.500 inside the home; d = 0.468 outside the home). Conclusions: Based on the trends of the AI data, we suggest that BA + OT-LVR services, provided by an OT in the patient's home following conventional low vision optometry services, are more effective than conventional optometric low vision services alone for those with mild visual impairment. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00769015.).