H Court1, B Ryan, C Bunce, T H Margrain. 1. School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. waltersh1@cardiff.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS: To determine if there was a significant difference between user-centred and clinical outcomes in people with low vision who attended a new community-based low vision service (CLVS) or the hospital-based low vision service (HBLV). METHODS: A prospective controlled before and after study. Participants were recruited from the CLVS (n=343; 96 male, 247 female; median age 82 years) and from the HLVS (n=145; 55 male, 90 female; median age 80 years). The primary outcome measure was change (baseline to 3 months) in visual disability as evaluated by the seven-item National Eye Institute-Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Secondary outcome measures included: use of low vision aids, satisfaction with the service provided and change in near visual acuity before and after the provision of low vision aids. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in user-centred and clinical outcome measures between the CLVS and HLVS. Self-reported visual disability was significantly reduced after low vision service intervention for participants in both groups by 0.46 and 0.57 logits in the HLVS and CLVS, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides strong evidence that CLVS and HLVS are effective methods of service provision in Wales.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To determine if there was a significant difference between user-centred and clinical outcomes in people with low vision who attended a new community-based low vision service (CLVS) or the hospital-based low vision service (HBLV). METHODS: A prospective controlled before and after study. Participants were recruited from the CLVS (n=343; 96 male, 247 female; median age 82 years) and from the HLVS (n=145; 55 male, 90 female; median age 80 years). The primary outcome measure was change (baseline to 3 months) in visual disability as evaluated by the seven-item National Eye Institute-Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Secondary outcome measures included: use of low vision aids, satisfaction with the service provided and change in near visual acuity before and after the provision of low vision aids. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in user-centred and clinical outcome measures between the CLVS and HLVS. Self-reported visual disability was significantly reduced after low vision service intervention for participants in both groups by 0.46 and 0.57 logits in the HLVS and CLVS, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides strong evidence that CLVS and HLVS are effective methods of service provision in Wales.
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: James Stuart Wolffsohn; Jonathan Jackson; Olivia Anne Hunt; Charles Cottriall; Jennifer Lindsay; Richard Gilmour; Anne Sinclair; Robert Harper Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Ruth Ma van Nispen; Gianni Virgili; Mirke Hoeben; Maaike Langelaan; Jeroen Klevering; Jan Ee Keunen; Ger Hmb van Rens Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-01-27