Literature DB >> 27495171

Patient-Centered Outcome Measures to Assess Functioning in Randomized Controlled Trials of Low-Vision Rehabilitation: A Review.

Joshua R Ehrlich1,2,3, George L Spaeth4, Noelle E Carlozzi5,6,7, Paul P Lee8,5,9.   

Abstract

Low-vision rehabilitation (LVR) aims to improve the functioning of patients with chronic uncorrectable visual impairment. LVR is inherently a patient-centered intervention since its approach and goals are dictated by the needs and abilities of each individual patient. Accordingly, it is essential to have patient-centered outcome (PCO) measures to assess and compare the efficacy and effectiveness of low-vision interventions; however, there is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of LVR interventions. We reviewed the literature in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of LVR and the outcome measures used to assess patient functioning in these trials. We identified 15 RCTs of LVR that employed nine unique patient-reported, five unique performance-based, and one hybrid (combined patient-reported and performance) outcome measures. Since these trials used distinct tools to assess patient functioning, it is difficult to compare the effectiveness of competing rehabilitation interventions across studies. Selecting valid outcome measures that are both relevant to LVR goals of specific patient populations and that measure functioning across a range of visually demanding tasks could improve the ability to detect the effect of LVR and to compare rehabilitation strategies. There are advantages and limitations to the use of both patient-reported and performance-based outcome measures, and additional work should be undertaken to explore the relationship between these modes of assessment, as well as strategies for optimally integrating these approaches. Careful selection of outcome measures in the design of future RCTs in LVR may lead to improved understanding of the effectiveness of LVR and, ultimately, to improved functioning of patients with low vision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27495171     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0189-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  68 in total

1.  Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire.

Authors:  C M Mangione; P P Lee; P R Gutierrez; K Spritzer; S Berry; R D Hays
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-07

Review 2.  Performance-based measures of visual function.

Authors:  Kevin J Warrian; Undraa Altangerel; George L Spaeth
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 6.048

3.  Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: results from focus groups with visually impaired persons.

Authors:  C M Mangione; S Berry; K Spritzer; N K Janz; R Klein; C Owsley; P P Lee
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1998-02

4.  Evaluating the effectiveness of a vision rehabilitation intervention using an objective and subjective measure of functional performance.

Authors:  P McCabe; F Nason; P Demers Turco; D Friedman; J M Seddon
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.648

5.  Psychometric properties of the Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire.

Authors:  Joan A Stelmack; Janet P Szlyk; Thomas R Stelmack; Paulette Demers-Turco; R Tracy Williams; D'Anna Moran; Robert W Massof
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  The effectiveness of low-vision rehabilitation on participation in daily living and quality of life.

Authors:  Ecosse L Lamoureux; Julie F Pallant; Konrad Pesudovs; Gwyn Rees; Jennifer B Hassell; Jill E Keeffe
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  The psychometric validity of the NEI VFQ-25 for use in a low-vision population.

Authors:  Manjula Marella; Konrad Pesudovs; Jill E Keeffe; Patricia M O'Connor; Gwyneth Rees; Ecosse L Lamoureux
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Assessment of activities of daily living in the elderly. A study of a population of 76-year-olds in Gothenburg, Sweden.

Authors:  U Sonn; K H Asberg
Journal:  Scand J Rehabil Med       Date:  1991

9.  Glaucoma and reading speed: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation project.

Authors:  Pradeep Y Ramulu; Sheila K West; Beatriz Munoz; Henry D Jampel; David S Friedman
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-01

10.  The Activity Inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire.

Authors:  Robert W Massof; Lohrasb Ahmadian; Lori L Grover; James T Deremeik; Judith E Goldstein; Carol Rainey; Cathy Epstein; G David Barnett
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.973

View more
  10 in total

1.  A Novel Vision-Enhancing Technology for Low-Vision Impairments.

Authors:  Carmelo Lodato; Patrizia Ribino
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 2.  Head-Mounted Display Technology for Low-Vision Rehabilitation and Vision Enhancement.

Authors:  Joshua R Ehrlich; Lauro V Ojeda; Donna Wicker; Sherry Day; Ashley Howson; Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan; Sayoko E Moroi
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-12-31       Impact factor: 5.258

3.  Toward Improving the Mobility of Patients with Peripheral Visual Field Defects with Novel Digital Spectacles.

Authors:  Ahmed M Sayed; Rashed Kashem; Mostafa Abdel-Mottaleb; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Taher K Eleiwa; Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb; Richard K Parrish; Mohamed Abou Shousha
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  Interventions Within the Scope of Occupational Therapy Practice to Improve Performance of Daily Activities for Older Adults With Low Vision: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Chiung-Ju Liu; Megan C Chang
Journal:  Am J Occup Ther       Date:  2020 Jan/Feb

5.  The key informant strategy to determine the prevalence and causes of functional low vision among children in South India.

Authors:  Sandra C Ganesh; Kalpana Narendran; Jeyanthi Nirmal; Vijayakumar Valaguru; Sangeetha Shanmugam; Nish Patel; Prabha Narayanaswamy; David C Musch; Joshua R Ehrlich
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 1.648

6.  Expansion of Peripheral Visual Field with Novel Virtual Reality Digital Spectacles.

Authors:  Ahmed M Sayed; Mostafa Abdel-Mottaleb; Rashed Kashem; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Amr Elsawy; Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb; Richard K Parrish; Mohamed Abou Shousha
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 5.258

Review 7.  Patient-Reported Outcomes Research in Neuro-Ophthalmology.

Authors:  Lindsey B De Lott; Joshua R Ehrlich
Journal:  J Neuroophthalmol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.415

8.  Development of the Ultra-Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (ULV-VFQ).

Authors:  Pamela E Jeter; Collin Rozanski; Robert Massof; Olukemi Adeyemo; Gislin Dagnelie
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.283

9.  Comment on "Clinical effectiveness of currently available low-vision devices in glaucoma patients with moderate-to-severe vision loss".

Authors:  Joshua R Ehrlich; Sayoko E Moroi
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-06-12

10.  Implementation of PROMIS® in an Optometry Clinic.

Authors:  Randall S Porter; Kathleen Holt; Rajeev S Ramchandran
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2021-10-07
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.