SIGNIFICANCE: Device utilization and abandonment for patients seen on a mobile clinic are explored. Findings are informative for resource allocation in a novel low vision rehabilitation (LVR) delivery model. This study also explores the relationships between device abandonment and LVR patient-reported functional outcomes. PURPOSE: This prospective cohort study investigated low vision device utilization and abandonment in a novel mobile clinic delivery model. METHODS: A device abandonment questionnaire was administered by telephone 3 months and 1 year after mobile clinic LVR. Participants (n = 65) had previously met the U.S. definition of legal blindness and were prescribed a total of 154 devices at their low vision consultative visits. Trends in device utilization and correlations with clinical and demographic participant characteristics, as well as functional outcomes as assessed by Massof Activity Inventory, are explored. RESULTS: An average of 2.6 device recommendations were made per participant. Digital magnification, optical magnifiers, and filters were most frequently recommended. At 3 months, 29% of participants abandoned at least one device, although only 17% of received devices were abandoned. There was no significant difference in the number of devices used, abandoned, or not received at 3 months versus 1 year after LVR. Devices prescribed for reading goals were most frequently used and least often abandoned, whereas glare control and distance magnification devices were more frequently abandoned. Neither patient characteristics nor Massof Activity Inventory change score was predictive of device abandonment. There was no significant difference in the odds of device abandonment in comparison with a previous study that assessed academic outpatient LVR clinics using the same questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Although more device recommendations are given per patient on the mobile clinic, there is no significant difference in device abandonment for patients seen on the mobile clinic versus other outpatient LVR delivery models.
SIGNIFICANCE: Device utilization and abandonment for patients seen on a mobile clinic are explored. Findings are informative for resource allocation in a novel low vision rehabilitation (LVR) delivery model. This study also explores the relationships between device abandonment and LVR patient-reported functional outcomes. PURPOSE: This prospective cohort study investigated low vision device utilization and abandonment in a novel mobile clinic delivery model. METHODS: A device abandonment questionnaire was administered by telephone 3 months and 1 year after mobile clinic LVR. Participants (n = 65) had previously met the U.S. definition of legal blindness and were prescribed a total of 154 devices at their low vision consultative visits. Trends in device utilization and correlations with clinical and demographic participant characteristics, as well as functional outcomes as assessed by Massof Activity Inventory, are explored. RESULTS: An average of 2.6 device recommendations were made per participant. Digital magnification, optical magnifiers, and filters were most frequently recommended. At 3 months, 29% of participants abandoned at least one device, although only 17% of received devices were abandoned. There was no significant difference in the number of devices used, abandoned, or not received at 3 months versus 1 year after LVR. Devices prescribed for reading goals were most frequently used and least often abandoned, whereas glare control and distance magnification devices were more frequently abandoned. Neither patient characteristics nor Massof Activity Inventory change score was predictive of device abandonment. There was no significant difference in the odds of device abandonment in comparison with a previous study that assessed academic outpatient LVR clinics using the same questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Although more device recommendations are given per patient on the mobile clinic, there is no significant difference in device abandonment for patients seen on the mobile clinic versus other outpatient LVR delivery models.
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: Judith E Goldstein; Mary Lou Jackson; Sandra M Fox; James T Deremeik; Robert W Massof Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Judith E Goldstein; Robert W Massof; James T Deremeik; Sonya Braudway; Mary Lou Jackson; K Bradley Kehler; Susan A Primo; Janet S Sunness Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2012-08
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
Authors: Joan A Stelmack; X Charlene Tang; Yongliang Wei; Denise Thomas Wilcox; Timothy Morand; Karen Brahm; Scott Sayers; Robert W Massof Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Ankit Patel; Alicia S Fothergill; Katy E C Barnard; Hannah Dunbar; Michael D Crossland Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.117