Baseline traits of low vision patients served by private outpatient clinical centers in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the traits of low vision patients who seek outpatient low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services in the United States. METHODS: In a prospective observational study, we enrolled 764 new low vision patients seeking outpatient LVR services from 28 clinical centers in the United States. Before their initial appointment, multiple questionnaires assessing daily living and vision, physical, psychological, and cognitive health states were administered by telephone. Baseline clinical visual impairment measures and disorder diagnoses were recorded. RESULTS: Patients had a median age of 77 years, were primarily female (66%), and had macular disease (55%), most of which was nonneovascular age-related macular degeneration. More than one-third of the patients (37%) had mild vision impairment with habitual visual acuity (VA) of 20/60 or greater. The VA correlated well with contrast sensitivity (r = -0.52) but poorly with self-reported vision quality. The intake survey revealed self-reported physical health limitations, including decreased endurance (68%) and mobility problems (52%). Many patients reported increased levels of frustration (42%) and depressed mood (22%); memory and cognitive impairment (11%) were less frequently endorsed. Patients relied on others for daily living support (87%), but many (31%) still drove. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients seeking LVR are geriatric and have macular disease with relatively preserved VA. The disparity between VA and subjective quality of vision suggests that LVR referrals are based on symptoms rather than on VA alone. Patients seen for LVR services have significant physical, psychological, and cognitive disorders that can amplify vision disabilities and decrease rehabilitation potential.

Abandonment of low-vision devices in an outpatient population.

PURPOSE: To investigate abandonment rate of prescribed low-vision devices for near tasks and factors associated with abandonment in a U.S. outpatient population. METHODS: A telephone survey was administered to 88 patients with low vision from four clinical sites about 1 year after examination and prescription of devices. Patients were surveyed on timing and frequency of use and reasons for abandonment of devices. The main outcome measure (abandonment) was defined as patient report of no use of prescribed device in the previous 3 months. Multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate significant vision and demographic factors related to abandonment. RESULTS: Of 119 prescribed devices, 19% (95% CI, 12 to 26) had not been used within the previous 3 months. Mean (±SD) better eye visual acuity at examination was 0.61 ± 0.29 logMAR, and mean age was 77 ± 17 years. Mean time between device prescription and survey was 11 ± 3 months. Device abandonment was not associated with age (p = 0.863), time since prescription (p = 0.125), visual acuity (p = 0.804), or category of magnification device (spectacle, handheld, stand, or video) (p = 0.412). There was a significant association between documented non-central visual field loss and abandonment of magnification device (p = 0.046). Repeat administration of the survey resulted in the same abandonment classification in 15 of 15 patients (100%). CONCLUSIONS: Abandonment rate was similar for this outpatient population to those previously reported in the U.S. veteran inpatient population and in other countries. Patients with visual field loss may be more likely to abandon prescribed devices.

A portable visual acuity device used in diabetic retinal screening.

PURPOSE: To correlate visual acuity measured with the Optec 800 to the gold-standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. METHODS: Forty patients of the Vanderbilt Eye Institute agreed to undergo visual acuity testing. Five patients were excluded because of enucleation or functional blindness of one or both eyes. Two patients were excluded because of poor cooperation during testing. Patients were randomized to one of the two methods and participated in visual acuity testing in a forced-choice manner. The sequence was repeated with the alternate instrument. A total-correct score was calculated for each data set. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in scores between the two methods (P(1) = .153, P(2) = .307.) Other factors such as gender, age, and instrument testing order did not affect performance. Age was inversely correlated with total correct score. CONCLUSIONS: In this small cohort, the Optec 800 (Chicago, Illinois, USA) and the ETDRS chart recorded similar visual acuity measurements.