OBJECTIVES: To describe characteristics of services, providers, and patients in low-vision rehabilitation entities serving adults in the United States. METHODS: Entities (excluding Veterans Affairs clinics) were identified through professional associations, Web searches, and a telephone survey to retina practices. A census obtained information on entity types, provider types, rehabilitation services available, and clientele. Surveys were administered by telephone, fax, e-mail, or mail, whichever was preferred by the respondent. RESULTS: A total of 1228 low-vision rehabilitation service entities were identified, with 608 surveyed (49.5% response rate). Almost half (42.7%) were private optometry practices. State agencies had the highest number of clients per week (45.0 clients per week) whereas private optometry practices had the lowest (4.1 clients per week). Most (> or =88.0%) established rehabilitation goals, fit optical aids with basic training, and conducted eye examinations. Scanning, eccentric viewing, orientation and mobility, and advanced device training were less commonly offered (25%-50% of entities). Central vision impairment was the most common deficit (74.1% of clients), with age-related macular degeneration being the most common cause (67.1%). Among the clients, 85.9% had problems reading and 67.7% had problems driving; 44.9% had adjustment disorders. Almost 1 in 3 clients was aged 80 years or older. CONCLUSION: This census for the first time characterizes usual-care low-vision rehabilitation services in the United States for nonveteran adults.
OBJECTIVES: To describe characteristics of services, providers, and patients in low-vision rehabilitation entities serving adults in the United States. METHODS: Entities (excluding Veterans Affairs clinics) were identified through professional associations, Web searches, and a telephone survey to retina practices. A census obtained information on entity types, provider types, rehabilitation services available, and clientele. Surveys were administered by telephone, fax, e-mail, or mail, whichever was preferred by the respondent. RESULTS: A total of 1228 low-vision rehabilitation service entities were identified, with 608 surveyed (49.5% response rate). Almost half (42.7%) were private optometry practices. State agencies had the highest number of clients per week (45.0 clients per week) whereas private optometry practices had the lowest (4.1 clients per week). Most (> or =88.0%) established rehabilitation goals, fit optical aids with basic training, and conducted eye examinations. Scanning, eccentric viewing, orientation and mobility, and advanced device training were less commonly offered (25%-50% of entities). Central vision impairment was the most common deficit (74.1% of clients), with age-related macular degeneration being the most common cause (67.1%). Among the clients, 85.9% had problems reading and 67.7% had problems driving; 44.9% had adjustment disorders. Almost 1 in 3 clients was aged 80 years or older. CONCLUSION: This census for the first time characterizes usual-care low-vision rehabilitation services in the United States for nonveteran adults.
Authors: Laura E Dreer; Timothy R Elliott; Jack Berry; Donald C Fletcher; Marsha Swanson; J Christopher McNeal Journal: Br J Health Psychol Date: 2007-05-14
Authors: Bradley E Dougherty; K Bradley Kehler; Richard Jamara; Nicole Patterson; Denise Valenti; Fuensanta A Vera-Diaz Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Pradeep Y Ramulu; Eugenio Maul; Chad Hochberg; Emilie S Chan; Luigi Ferrucci; David S Friedman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: M Austin Coker; Carrie E Huisingh; Gerald McGwin; Russell W Read; Mark W Swanson; Laura E Dreer; Dawn K DeCarlo; Lindsay Gregg; Cynthia Owsley Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Heather E Whitson; Diane Whitaker; Guy Potter; Eleanor McConnell; Fay Tripp; Linda L Sanders; Kelly W Muir; Harvey J Cohen; Scott W Cousins Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 7.389