AIM: To investigate the impact of an interdisciplinary low vision service on the vision related quality of life of service users. METHODS: 71 patients were interviewed 2 weeks before their appointment with the service and again 6 months later to assess any changes in their vision related quality of life. The majority of these patients had age related macular degeneration. RESULTS: After contact with the service the majority of patients indicated a reduction in concern about most quality of life issues. They were significantly less anxious about deterioration of their vision, safety within the home, and coping with everyday life. CONCLUSION: Improvements in many areas of their vision related quality of life indicate that this interdisciplinary low vision service has a positive impact on the lives of service users. However many patients were still unable to carry out their preferred everyday activities, and feelings of loneliness and isolation were unchanged. The identification of issues unrelieved by input from the service will be important in planning future service delivery.
AIM: To investigate the impact of an interdisciplinary low vision service on the vision related quality of life of service users. METHODS: 71 patients were interviewed 2 weeks before their appointment with the service and again 6 months later to assess any changes in their vision related quality of life. The majority of these patients had age related macular degeneration. RESULTS: After contact with the service the majority of patients indicated a reduction in concern about most quality of life issues. They were significantly less anxious about deterioration of their vision, safety within the home, and coping with everyday life. CONCLUSION: Improvements in many areas of their vision related quality of life indicate that this interdisciplinary low vision service has a positive impact on the lives of service users. However many patients were still unable to carry out their preferred everyday activities, and feelings of loneliness and isolation were unchanged. The identification of issues unrelieved by input from the service will be important in planning future service delivery.
Authors: Mary Kay Margolis; Karin Coyne; Tessa Kennedy-Martin; Timothy Baker; Oliver Schein; Dennis A Revicki Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2002 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: L E Culham; B Ryan; A J Jackson; A R Hill; B Jones; C Miles; J A Young; C Bunce; A C Bird Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: C Dickinson; P Linck; R Tudor-Edwards; A Binns; C Bunce; R Harper; J Jackson; J Lindsay; A Suttie; J Wolffsohn; M Woodhouse; T Margrain Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Thomas Kuyk; Lei Liu; Jeffry L Elliott; Hartley E Grubbs; Cynthia Owsley; Gerald McGwin; Russell L Griffin; Patti S Fuhr Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Robert P Finger; Eva Fenwick; Manjula Marella; Peter Charbel Issa; Hendrik P N Scholl; Frank G Holz; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Joshua R Ehrlich; H Jeyaseeli Flora; Brian C Stagg; B Vengadesh; Gabrielle Willey; Ashok Vardhan S Journal: Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) Date: 2020 Sep-Oct