Clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation delivered by a mobile clinic

Micaela Gobeille, Alexis Malkin, Richard Jamara, Nicole C. Ross

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: This prospective cohort study examined clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation (LVR) delivered by a mobile clinic. Methods: Participants were recruited from those scheduled for mobile clinic LVR and met the United States definition of legal blindness. Participants completed the Massof Activity Inventory (AI) before LVR, 3 months post-LVR, and 1 year post-LVR. Change scores and measures of clinical effect (i.e. Cohen's effect size and minimum clinically important difference, MCID) were calculated for each time point and compared. Additional participant characteristics (age, acuity, contrast sensitivity, cause of visual impairment, training recommendations, and prior LVR experience) were also explored with respect to outcome measures. Results: Of the 66 participants enroled in this study, 47% had no prior LVR experience. Significant differences were noted between baseline and 3-month person measures, and between baseline and 1-year person measures. There was no significant difference between 3-month and 1-year person measures, nor was there a significant difference in change score between these two time points. At 1 year post-LVR, overall visual ability effect size was 0.74. A clinically meaningful outcome was achieved in 56% of participants at 3 months and 71% at 1 year for overall visual ability. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants achieving MCID at 3 months vs 1 year. Of participants who completed the 1-year post-LVR AI, 59% reported a subjective worsening of vision during the study period. This subgroup also tended to have smaller 1-year change scores. Conclusions: Mobile clinic LVR is effective at expanding access to care and produces clinically meaningful outcomes comparable to those seen in other outpatient LVR delivery models.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)193-202
Number of pages10
JournalOphthalmic and Physiological Optics
Volume38
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mobile Health Units
Low Vision
Rehabilitation
Aptitude
Equipment and Supplies
Contrast Sensitivity
Vision Disorders
Blindness
Cohort Studies
Outpatients

Keywords

  • epidemiology
  • low vision

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Optometry
  • Sensory Systems

Cite this

Clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation delivered by a mobile clinic. / Gobeille, Micaela; Malkin, Alexis; Jamara, Richard; Ross, Nicole C.

In: Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Vol. 38, No. 2, 01.03.2018, p. 193-202.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gobeille, Micaela ; Malkin, Alexis ; Jamara, Richard ; Ross, Nicole C. / Clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation delivered by a mobile clinic. In: Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2018 ; Vol. 38, No. 2. pp. 193-202.
@article{178bb83bab4a425cbaa833ad9890afc5,
title = "Clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation delivered by a mobile clinic",
abstract = "Purpose: This prospective cohort study examined clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation (LVR) delivered by a mobile clinic. Methods: Participants were recruited from those scheduled for mobile clinic LVR and met the United States definition of legal blindness. Participants completed the Massof Activity Inventory (AI) before LVR, 3 months post-LVR, and 1 year post-LVR. Change scores and measures of clinical effect (i.e. Cohen's effect size and minimum clinically important difference, MCID) were calculated for each time point and compared. Additional participant characteristics (age, acuity, contrast sensitivity, cause of visual impairment, training recommendations, and prior LVR experience) were also explored with respect to outcome measures. Results: Of the 66 participants enroled in this study, 47{\%} had no prior LVR experience. Significant differences were noted between baseline and 3-month person measures, and between baseline and 1-year person measures. There was no significant difference between 3-month and 1-year person measures, nor was there a significant difference in change score between these two time points. At 1 year post-LVR, overall visual ability effect size was 0.74. A clinically meaningful outcome was achieved in 56{\%} of participants at 3 months and 71{\%} at 1 year for overall visual ability. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants achieving MCID at 3 months vs 1 year. Of participants who completed the 1-year post-LVR AI, 59{\%} reported a subjective worsening of vision during the study period. This subgroup also tended to have smaller 1-year change scores. Conclusions: Mobile clinic LVR is effective at expanding access to care and produces clinically meaningful outcomes comparable to those seen in other outpatient LVR delivery models.",
keywords = "epidemiology, low vision",
author = "Micaela Gobeille and Alexis Malkin and Richard Jamara and Ross, {Nicole C.}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/opo.12440",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "193--202",
journal = "Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics",
issn = "0275-5408",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation delivered by a mobile clinic

AU - Gobeille, Micaela

AU - Malkin, Alexis

AU - Jamara, Richard

AU - Ross, Nicole C.

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Purpose: This prospective cohort study examined clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation (LVR) delivered by a mobile clinic. Methods: Participants were recruited from those scheduled for mobile clinic LVR and met the United States definition of legal blindness. Participants completed the Massof Activity Inventory (AI) before LVR, 3 months post-LVR, and 1 year post-LVR. Change scores and measures of clinical effect (i.e. Cohen's effect size and minimum clinically important difference, MCID) were calculated for each time point and compared. Additional participant characteristics (age, acuity, contrast sensitivity, cause of visual impairment, training recommendations, and prior LVR experience) were also explored with respect to outcome measures. Results: Of the 66 participants enroled in this study, 47% had no prior LVR experience. Significant differences were noted between baseline and 3-month person measures, and between baseline and 1-year person measures. There was no significant difference between 3-month and 1-year person measures, nor was there a significant difference in change score between these two time points. At 1 year post-LVR, overall visual ability effect size was 0.74. A clinically meaningful outcome was achieved in 56% of participants at 3 months and 71% at 1 year for overall visual ability. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants achieving MCID at 3 months vs 1 year. Of participants who completed the 1-year post-LVR AI, 59% reported a subjective worsening of vision during the study period. This subgroup also tended to have smaller 1-year change scores. Conclusions: Mobile clinic LVR is effective at expanding access to care and produces clinically meaningful outcomes comparable to those seen in other outpatient LVR delivery models.

AB - Purpose: This prospective cohort study examined clinical outcomes of low vision rehabilitation (LVR) delivered by a mobile clinic. Methods: Participants were recruited from those scheduled for mobile clinic LVR and met the United States definition of legal blindness. Participants completed the Massof Activity Inventory (AI) before LVR, 3 months post-LVR, and 1 year post-LVR. Change scores and measures of clinical effect (i.e. Cohen's effect size and minimum clinically important difference, MCID) were calculated for each time point and compared. Additional participant characteristics (age, acuity, contrast sensitivity, cause of visual impairment, training recommendations, and prior LVR experience) were also explored with respect to outcome measures. Results: Of the 66 participants enroled in this study, 47% had no prior LVR experience. Significant differences were noted between baseline and 3-month person measures, and between baseline and 1-year person measures. There was no significant difference between 3-month and 1-year person measures, nor was there a significant difference in change score between these two time points. At 1 year post-LVR, overall visual ability effect size was 0.74. A clinically meaningful outcome was achieved in 56% of participants at 3 months and 71% at 1 year for overall visual ability. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants achieving MCID at 3 months vs 1 year. Of participants who completed the 1-year post-LVR AI, 59% reported a subjective worsening of vision during the study period. This subgroup also tended to have smaller 1-year change scores. Conclusions: Mobile clinic LVR is effective at expanding access to care and produces clinically meaningful outcomes comparable to those seen in other outpatient LVR delivery models.

KW - epidemiology

KW - low vision

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042524746&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042524746&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/opo.12440

DO - 10.1111/opo.12440

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 193

EP - 202

JO - Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

JF - Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

SN - 0275-5408

IS - 2

ER -