Head-mounted Visual Assistive Technology-related Quality of Life Changes after Telerehabilitation

Feasibility of telerehabilitation to address the orientation and mobility needs of individuals with visual impairment: perspectives of current guide dog users

OBJECTIVE

To assess guide dog users' perspectives on the feasibility of telerehabilitation for their O&M needs.

METHOD

An online survey gathered insights from 56 guide dog (GD) users (Mean age = 59, Mean GD used = 4, Mean duration of use = 22 years). Thirteen GD users further participated in interviews or focus groups to explore survey responses. Data were analyzed using content analysis.

FINDINGS

Most (40) were blind, and 16 had low vision, with intermediate (25) and advanced (25) communication technology proficiency. Most GD users (46) underwent residential training, and 10 received one-on-one visits. Qualitative analysis revealed acceptance of telerehabilitation services, citing accessibility as an advantage. However, GD users expressed concerns about safety, potential loss of behavioral observation, and social contact loss. Success depended on the type of technology, service type, and personal attributes.

CONCLUSION

While feasible, telerehabilitation services may not be universally suitable for all training stages. Flexibility and applicability in service design are necessary to accommodate individual preferences and experience levels.

The effects of an electronic head-mounted display in vision rehabilitation for patients with tunnel vision

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of a new head-mounted electronic visual aid-Acesight on improving visual function and daily activities in patients with tunnel vision.

METHODS

57 patients with tunnel vision participated in this study. The visual field (VF), visual acuity (VA), search ability, time of finding people from the side (TFPS), walking ability, and the subjective feelings of patients with and without Acesight were measured.

RESULTS

15 (36%) patients thought Acesight was "helpful", 16 (28%) thought it was "a little help", and 26 (46%) believed that it was "not helpful." The proportion of people aged < 60 years found Acesight helpful was higher. When wearing Acesight, the average horizontal VF diameter (°) (35.54[8.72]) and vertical VF diameter (°) (26.63[5.38]) were larger than those without visual aids (20.61[9.22], 18.19[6.67]) (P all < 0.001). The average TFPS before and while wearing the Acesight was 1.77s(0.32) and 1.19s(0.29), respectively (t = 14.28, P < 0.001). The average search times, number of collisions, walking speeds when wearing the Acesight were not statistically different from those without visual aids (P all > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

More than half of patients with tunnel vision found the Acesight helpful, and a higher proportion of those aged < 60 years old found it helpful. Acesight can expand the horizontal and vertical VF of patients with tunnel vision and can enable patients to detect objects coming from the side earlier.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000028859; Date of registration: 2020/1/5; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=47129.

At-Home Trial of Four Different Head-Mounted Displays in Visual Rehabilitation of People with Stargardt Disease

Purpose

To examine the potential of different head-mounted displays in the rehabilitation of individuals with visual impairment.

Methods

This prospective explorative study conducted between September 2019 and August 2020 included participants with Stargardt disease with moderate to severe visual impairment and a relatively preserved peripheral visual field. AceSight, eSight 3, IrisVision Live, and Jordy were tested. After instruction and training, participants chose two head-mounted displays for home use for two weeks per device. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was used for evaluation.

Results

Twelve participants (aged 16-53 years) tested all head-mounted displays in the clinic. Distance visual acuity and reading distance improved with all head-mounted displays and eSight and Irisvision improved near visual acuity. Six participants decided not to test the head-mounted display at home due to lack of time or energy, dizziness and discomfort, double vision and peripheral visual field limitation, or aesthetics. After home use, the participants reported improved visual function at a distance with IrisVision, AceSight, and e-Sight, whereas only AceSight improved vision during near tasks. IrisVision and eSight improved reading ability, and none of the devices improved vision during tasks involving computers. Five participants used the devices sparingly, and five avoided public use owing to aesthetics.

Conclusion

We found an improvement in distance visual acuity and increased reading distance for all tested head-mounted displays. Additionally, IrisVision and eSight improved visual function at near and eSight also improved contrast vision at distance. Despite the possibility of improving vision, social stigma and device aesthetics kept the participants from using head-mounted displays in public and limited their use at home.

Available Assistive Technology Outcome Measures: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization claimed that measuring outcomes is necessary to understand the benefits of assistive technology (AT) and create evidence-based policies and systems to ensure universal access to it. In clinical practice, there is an increasing need for standardized methods to track AT interventions using outcome assessments.

OBJECTIVE

This review provides an overview of the available outcome measures that can be used at the follow-up stage of any AT intervention and integrated into daily clinical or service practice.

METHODS

We systematically searched for original manuscripts regarding available and used AT outcome measures by searching for titles and abstracts in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023.

RESULTS

We analyzed 955 articles, of which 50 (5.2%) were included in the review. Within these, 53 instruments have been mentioned and used to provide an AT outcome assessment. The most widely used tool is the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, followed by the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technology Scale. Moreover, the identified measures addressed 8 AT outcome domains: functional efficacy, satisfaction, psychosocial impact, caregiver burden, quality of life, participation, confidence, and usability. The AT category Assistive products for activities and participation relating to personal mobility and transportation was the most involved in the reviewed articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the 53 cited instruments, only 17 (32%) scales were designed to evaluate specifically assistive devices. Moreover, 64% (34/53) of the instruments were only mentioned once to denote poor uniformity and concordance in the instruments to be used, limiting the possibility of comparing the results of studies. This work could represent a good guide for promoting the use of validated AT outcome measures in clinical practice that can be helpful to AT assessment teams in their everyday activities and the improvement of clinical practice.

Mixed Reality Platforms in Telehealth Delivery: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The distinctive features of the digital reality platforms, namely augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR) have extended to medical education, training, simulation, and patient care. Furthermore, this digital reality technology seamlessly merges with information and communication technology creating an enriched telehealth ecosystem. This review provides a composite overview of the prospects of telehealth delivered using the MR platform in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

This review identifies various clinical applications of high-fidelity digital display technology, namely AR, VR, and MR, delivered using telehealth capabilities. Next, the review focuses on the technical characteristics, hardware, and software technologies used in the composition of AR, VR, and MR in telehealth.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using the methodological framework and reporting design using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Full-length articles in English were obtained from the Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. The search protocol was based on the following keywords and Medical Subject Headings to obtain relevant results: "augmented reality," "virtual reality," "mixed-reality," "telemedicine," "telehealth," and "digital health." A predefined inclusion-exclusion criterion was developed in filtering the obtained results and the final selection of the articles, followed by data extraction and construction of the review.

RESULTS

We identified 4407 articles, of which 320 were eligible for full-text screening. A total of 134 full-text articles were included in the review. Telerehabilitation, telementoring, teleconsultation, telemonitoring, telepsychiatry, telesurgery, and telediagnosis were the segments of the telehealth division that explored the use of AR, VR, and MR platforms. Telerehabilitation using VR was the most commonly recurring segment in the included studies. AR and MR has been mainly used for telementoring and teleconsultation. The most important technical features of digital reality technology to emerge with telehealth were virtual environment, exergaming, 3D avatars, telepresence, anchoring annotations, and first-person viewpoint. Different arrangements of technology-3D modeling and viewing tools, communication and streaming platforms, file transfer and sharing platforms, sensors, high-fidelity displays, and controllers-formed the basis of most systems.

CONCLUSIONS

This review constitutes a recent overview of the evolving digital AR and VR in various clinical applications using the telehealth setup. This combination of telehealth with AR, VR, and MR allows for remote facilitation of clinical expertise and further development of home-based treatment. This review explores the rapidly growing suite of technologies available to users within the digital health sector and examines the opportunities and challenges they present.

Visual Telerehabilitation with Visually Impaired Children: From the Pandemic Emergency to a Stand-Alone Method

In the last two years, orthoptists have counteracted patient drop-out through visual telerehabilitation. Efforts were made to transfer the in-person visual rehabilitation setting to the telematic environment in response to the worldwide crisis. Nowadays, statistical evidence on the effects of visual telerehabilitation is still scarce. The present research is the first, in Italy, to offer a pre-post assessment of the impact of visual telerehabilitation. Twenty-four (n = 24) children (64% male, 14% monocles) aged 4 to 15 years (mean age = 9.21 years, SD = 3.36, mean residual vision 1.3/10) were randomly assigned to three different group types for rehabilitation: a telematic rehabilitation group (n = 7), a mixed rehabilitation group (n = 8), and an in-person rehabilitation group (n = 9). Each group underwent a six-week visual rehabilitation. Ergo-perimetric evaluation before and after the rehabilitation was administered to the three groups. t-tests showed a significant improvement in ergo-perimetric outcomes in the visual telerehabilitation group (p < 0.05) and in the mixed rehabilitation group (p < 0.01), via a shortening of the response times. The findings suggest that visual telerehabilitation and mixed rehabilitation can lead to an ergo-perimetric improvement in visually impaired children within six weeks. Further research is needed, both to corroborate the findings with a larger sample size and to attain a follow-up measurement in order to clarify whether visual telerehabilitation could represent a stand-alone method.

Are wearable electronic vision enhancement systems (wEVES) beneficial for people with age-related macular degeneration? A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of irreversible visual impairment in the United Kingdom. It has a wide-ranging detrimental impact on daily living, including impairment of functional ability and quality of life. Assistive technology designed to overcome this impairment includes wearable electronic vision enhancement systems (wEVES). This scoping review assesses the usefulness of these systems for people with AMD.

METHODS

Four databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL) were searched to identify papers that investigated image enhancement with a head-mounted electronic device on a sample population that included people with AMD.

RESULTS

Thirty-two papers were included: 18 studied the clinical and functional benefits of wEVES, 11 investigated use and usability and 3 discussed sickness and adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearable electronic vision enhancement systems provide hands-free magnification and image enhancement producing significant improvements in acuity, contrast sensitivity and aspects of laboratory-simulated daily activity. Adverse effects were infrequent, minor and spontaneously resolved with the removal of the device. However, when symptoms arose, they sometimes persisted with continued device usage. There are multi-factorial influences and a diversity of user opinions on promotors to successful device use. These factors are not exclusively driven by visual improvement and incorporate other issues including device weight, ease of use and inconspicuous design. There is insufficient evidence of any cost-benefit analysis for wEVES. However, it has been shown that a user's decision to make a purchase evolves over time, with their estimates of cost falling below the retail price of the devices. Additional research is needed to understand the specific and distinct benefits of wEVES for people with AMD. Further patient-centred research should assess the benefits of wEVES in user-led activities when directly compared with alternative coping strategies, allowing professionals and users to make better prescribing and purchasing decisions.

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.

Scoping review of remote rehabilitation (telerehabilitation) services to support people with vision impairment

OBJECTIVE

Telerehabilitation for individuals with vision impairment aims to maintain maximum physical and/or psychological functioning through remote service delivery. This review aims to describe the type of telerehabilitation services available to people with vision impairment and summarise evidence on health-related outcomes, well-being and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsychINFO, Embase, PubMed, HMIC and Ovid Emcare were searched, without date restrictions up to 24 May 2021. Charity and government websites, conference proceedings and clinical trial databases were also examined.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible studies evaluated benefits of telerehabilitation services for adults with vision impairment. Studies were excluded if they were not available in English, or focused on distance learning of visually impaired students.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers screened articles and extracted data. A risk of bias analysis was performed.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Measures of benefit included performance-based assessment, patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Of 4472 articles, 10 eligible studies were included. Outcomes addressed patient satisfaction (n=4;33.3%), quality-of-life, activities of daily living and well-being (n=4;33.3%), objective visual function (n=2;16.6%) and knowledge relating to ocular symptoms (n=1;8.3%). Two studies addressed multiple outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was addressed in one article (8.3%). Patients were generally satisfied with their experiences, which had a range of positive benefits on functional and quality-of-life outcomes in areas relating to daily activities (eg, reading, making phone calls). Telerehabilitation allowed patients to undertake vision optimisation training to prevent vision deterioration. Grey literature indicated that there are no completed clinical trials relating to low vision telerehabilitation. Charity services had implemented digital skills training to help beneficiaries communicate remotely.

CONCLUSION

While acceptability of telerehabilitation was mostly high, limited real-world data are available which raises questions around the long-term desirability of this approach. Further trials are needed to evaluate telerehabilitation using a robust set of outcome measures.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021254825.

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.