Randomized Trial of Tablet Computers for Education and Learning in Children and Young People with Low Vision

Use of electronic devices by people attending vision rehabilitation services in Italy: A study based on the device and aids registry (D.A.Re)

PURPOSE

To investigate the characteristics of electronic device users, specifically smartphones and tablets, in the Device & Aids Register (D.A.Re), from several low-vision rehabilitation services in Italy.

METHODS

We collected general and clinical information about ocular and systemic diseases, visual function, reading speed and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) questionnaire score. Technological details of each optical and electronic device, (including screen size, touch-screen and OCR functions, text-to-speech function) were also collected.

RESULTS

1218 patients (752 females and 466 males) were included in our analysis, mean age 71.5 (±18.8) years. Users of electronic aids (n.237) were slightly younger (67 vs 72 years, p < 0.001) than non-users (n.981), had a worse reading speed (38 vs 65 words/minute), critical print size (43 vs 28 print size, p < 0.001), poorer visual acuity (VA)(1.0 logMAR or less: 30% non-users vs 73% users, p < 0.001) and more commonly visual field restriction within 10° (23% vs 14%, p = 0.001). A similar proportion of users and non-users were retired (about 70%) and about 16-17% were employed. The use of portable electronic devices (5″or less, p < 0.001; 6″ to 18″ screen size, p = 0.017) was associated with better IADL scores, and the use of stand devices with worse IADL score (p < 0.001); Furthermore, using smartphones and tablets (193 subjects) was strongly associated with better IADL scores.

CONCLUSION

We found that using electronic devices, and especially smartphone and tablets, were associated with better vision-related quality of life in low-vision people attending rehabilitation services. While this association does not mean causality, these findings seemed robust to confounder adjustment.

Impact of Apps as Assistive Devices for Visually Impaired Persons

The pervasiveness of mobile devices and other associated technologies has affected all aspects of our daily lives. People with visual impairments are no exception, as they increasingly tend to rely on mobile apps for assistance with various visual tasks in daily life. Compared to dedicated visual aids, mobile apps offer advantages such as affordability, versatility, portability, and ubiquity. We have surveyed hundreds of mobile apps of potential interest to people with vision impairments, either released as special assistive apps claiming to help in tasks such as text or object recognition (n = 68), digital accessibility (n = 84), navigation (n = 44), and remote sighted service (n = 4), among others, or marketed as general camera magnification apps that can be used for visual assistance (n = 77). While assistive apps as a whole received positive feedback from visually impaired users, as reported in various studies, evaluations of the usability of every app were typically limited to user reviews, which are often not scientifically informative. Rigorous evaluation studies on the effect of vision assistance apps on daily task performance and quality of life are relatively rare. Moreover, evaluation criteria are difficult to establish, given the heterogeneity of the visual tasks and visual needs of the users. In addition to surveying literature on vision assistance apps, this review discusses the feasibility and necessity of conducting scientific research to understand visual needs and methods to evaluate real-world benefits.

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision

BACKGROUND

Low vision affects over 300 million people worldwide and can compromise both activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitative training and vision assistive equipment (VAE) may help, but some visually impaired people have limited resources to attend in-person visits to rehabilitation clinics to be trained to learn to use VAE. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through access to remote, internet-based consultation (telerehabilitation).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of telerehabilitation with face-to-face (e.g. in-office or inpatient) vision rehabilitation services for improving vision-related quality of life and near reading ability in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives were to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for VAE devices, and patient satisfaction ratings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any language restriction or study design filter in the electronic searches; however, we restricted the searches from 1980 onwards because the internet was not introduced to the public until 1982. We last searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, and PubMed on 14 September 2021, and the trial registries on 16 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants diagnosed with low vision had received vision rehabilitation services remotely from a human provider using internet, web-based technology compared with an approach involving in-person consultations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved by the searches of the electronic databases and then full-text articles for eligible studies. Two review authors independently abstracted data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one RCT/CCT that indirectly met our inclusion criteria, and two ongoing trials that met our inclusion criteria. The included trial had an overall high risk of bias. We did not conduct a quantitative analysis since multiple controlled trials were not identified.  The single included trial of 57 participants utilized a parallel-group design. It compared 30 hours of either personalized low vision training through telerehabilitation with a low vision therapist (the experimental group) with the self-training standard provided by eSight using the eSkills User Guide that was self-administered by the participants at home for one hour per day for 30 days (the comparison group). The trial investigators found a similar direction of effects for both groups for vision-related quality of life and satisfaction at two weeks, three months, and six months. A greater proportion of participants in the comparison group had abandoned or discontinued use of the eSight Eyewear at two weeks than those in the telerehabilitation group, but discontinuance rates were similar between groups at one month and three months. We rated the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes as very low due to high risk of bias in randomization processes and missing outcome data and imprecision.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included trial found similar efficacy between telerehabilitation with a therapist and an active control intervention of self-guided training in mostly younger to middle-aged adults with low vision who received a new wearable electronic aid. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, the two ongoing studies, when completed, may provide further evidence of the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.

Personalized Telerehabilitation for a Head-mounted Low Vision Aid: A Randomized Feasibility Study

SIGNIFICANCE

A recent trend in low vision rehabilitation has been the use of portable head-mounted displays to enhance residual vision. Our study confirms the feasibility of telerehabilitation and informs the development of evidence-based recommendations to improve telerehabilitation interventions to reduce device abandonment.

PURPOSE

To develop evidence-based recommendations for telerehabilitation, we conducted a feasibility study in preparation for a future randomized trial on the use of head-mounted displays.

METHODS

We recruited novice eSight Eyewear users, randomized 1:1: the experimental group received telerehabilitation by a low vision therapist using video conferencing; the control group completed at home self-training provided by the device manufacturer. The primary feasibility outcomes were whether the recruitment goal of 60 participants (30/group) was attainable within 1 year and how participants judged the accessibility and acceptability of the telerehabilitation. An exploratory outcome was the impact of telerehabilitation on eSight Eyewear use behavior.

RESULTS

Among 333 eSight users, 57 participants were enrolled, of which 35% withdrew from the study, whereas the remainder completed the 6-month follow-up. The withdrawal rate was higher in the control group but did not differ significantly from the experimental group. High accessibility (93% of participants accessed the platform) and global acceptability (100% overall satisfaction) were reported among those who completed the telerehabilitation protocol. The therapist had no difficulty judging the participants' reading performances qualitatively while participants used their device to read their eSkills and VisExc guides. Most participants improved their daily activities, based on qualitative reports of the attained goals. Seventy-nine percent of individuals declined to participate, whereas 16% of participants decided not to use eSight Eyewear anymore.

CONCLUSIONS

The data demonstrated the feasibility of a randomized controlled telerehabilitation study for people with low vision using a head-mounted display. Positive feedback from the participants and the therapist suggests the potential value of this modality for low vision services.

Multidisciplinary visual rehabilitation in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence for effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in people who are visually impaired, living in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Fifteen databases and the grey literature were searched up until February 2020; papers were identified according to eligibility criteria, and assessed for risk of bias. Eligible studies were controlled trials (randomised or non-randomised) of rehabilitation interventions for blind or visually impaired adults or children from low- and middle-income countries. Possible outcomes included visual acuity, activities of daily living, safety, quality of life and psychological status.

RESULTS

Fifteen eligible studies were identified from India, Turkey, Nigeria, Croatia and Iran. Six studies were randomised, seven were non-randomised trials, and in two the method of allocation was not clear. Participants were adults, children and both adults and children. Seven studies were small (n ≤ 65) and examined the effect of training programmes. Remaining studies compared the effect of low vision aids, economic rehabilitation, goalball, rehabilitation compliance and service delivery methods, including one large four-arm randomised trial (n = 436). Studies measured a variety of outcomes, and mostly showed a positive effect of interventions for pre- and post-intervention assessment, although between intervention group comparisons were often inconclusive. Overall, only four studies had a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of high-quality evidence for rehabilitation interventions is a barrier to provision of low vision services in low- and middle-income countries. Future research should focus on establishing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of devices and models of vision rehabilitation appropriate for low-resource settings.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe systematic review found a lack of high-quality evidence for rehabilitation interventions is a barrier to provision of low vision services in low- and middle-income countries.Consider how visual rehabilitation interventions which have been shown to be effective can be delivered by non-specialists.Ensure that service providers for people who are visually impaired are trained in recognising depression and anxiety and have pathways for referral to mental health services, as appropriate.

Optic atrophy in children: Current causes and diagnostic approach

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Optic atrophy is one of the leading causes of sight impairment in children. It frequently poses a diagnostic challenge, as it can be caused by many ocular and systemic conditions. We aimed to determine the current causes of optic atrophy at our centre and to describe the use of investigations, including molecular genetic testing.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of children with optic atrophy seen at Moorfields Eye Hospital between 2010 and 2015. We recorded demographic data, reason for referral, history, investigations and diagnosis.

RESULTS

We studied 143 cases aged below 16 years. A cause could be identified in all cases. Taking a full history was the most important part of the diagnostic workup, identifying a cause in 96 (67%) children. A developmental disorder of the brain and/or optic nerve, sometimes with retinal involvement, was the commonest cause (n = 33, 23%), followed by inheritable optic neuropathies (n = 27, 19%). Other causes included perinatal insults (n = 18, 13%), post-infectious or post-inflammatory conditions (n = 18, 13%), accidental or abusive trauma (n = 14, 10%) and inheritable retinal dystrophies (n = 13, 9%). Rare conditions included neurodegenerative disorders (n = 7, 5%), skeletal developmental disorders such as rickets (n = 4, 3%), tumours (n = 4, 3%), ischaemic events including large optic nerve head drusen (n = 4, 3%) and toxic events/metabolic conditions (n = 1, 0.7%).

CONCLUSION

In this series, an underlying cause could be identified in all cases. Taking a comprehensive antenatal, perinatal, postnatal and family history will indicate a probable diagnosis in two-thirds of children, and targeted ancillary tests may identify the cause in most remaining cases.

Factors related to the use of magnifying low vision aids: a scoping review

Background: The decision process around the (non-)use of assistive technologies is multifactorial. Its determinants have previously been classified into personal, device-related, environmental and interventional categories. Whether these categories specifically apply to the use of magnifying low vision aids was explored here, using this classification.Methods: A scoping review (Embase, MedLine, Cochrane, ERIC ProQuest, CINAHL, NICE Evidence, Trip Database) was conducted to summarize the extent, range, and nature of research regarding the categories that are associated with low vision aid (non-)usage. A combination of key words and MeSH terms was used based upon the identified core concepts of the research question: low vision, assistive technology and adherence. Inter-rater reliability for the selection process was considered acceptable (kappa = 0.87). A combination of numerical and qualitative description of 21 studies was performed.Results: Studies report high variability rates of people possessing devices but not using them (range: 2.3-50%, M = 25%, SD = 14%). We were able to replicate the conceptual structure of the four categories that had previsouly been identified with other devices. Age, diagnosis and visual acuity demonstrated contradictory influence on optical low vision aid usage. Change in vision, appropriate environment, consistent training, patient's motivation and awareness of low vision services, emerged as contributor factors of use.Conclusion: This review provides evidence that clinicians should not rely on traditionally available clinical factors to predict device use behavior. Worsening vision and low motivation appear as predictors of device nonuse and should be considered from the clinician's point of view. Education about potential facilitating factors and promotion of innovative care are strongly encouraged.Implications for rehabilitationInvestigation of the factors predicting (non-)use of magnifying low vision aids is important. These findings can help clinicians to identify patients with a higher risk of non-use of low vision aids as well as provide evidence for interventions designed to improve use.Knowledge of low vision services and types of magnifying low vision aids available to patients appears as fundamental in the process of device use and needs to be supported by more educational programs.Psychological factors predicting (non-)use of low vision aids need to be considered in the choice of rehabilitation and follow-up strategies by a multidisciplinary team, focusing more on mechanisms of adaptation and patient's motivation.Training intensity should play a central role in the development of innovative intervention programs to reduce device abandonment.