Low Vision Rehabilitation for Adult African Americans in Two Settings. Issue 7 (July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Draper, Erin M.; Feng, Rui; Appel, Sarah D.; Graboyes, Marcy; Engle, Erin; Ciner, Elise B.; Ellenberg, Jonas H.; Stambolian, Dwight
• Is Part Of: Optometry and vision science. Volume 93:Issue 7(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-07
• Subjects: low vision rehabilitation -- central vision impairment -- African Americans -- functional vision assessment -- activities of daily living; Optometry -- Periodicals; Physiological optics -- Periodicals; Vision disorders -- Periodicals; 617.7505
• DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000870
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-5488

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Purpose: The Vision Rehabilitation for African Americans with Central Vision Impairment (VISRAC) study is a demonstration project evaluating how modifications in vision rehabilitation can improve the use of functional vision. Methods: Fifty-five African Americans 40 years of age and older with central vision impairment were randomly assigned to receive either clinic-based (CB) or home-based (HB) low vision rehabilitation services. Forty-eight subjects completed the study. The primary outcome was the change in functional vision in activities of daily living, as assessed with the Veteran's Administration Low-Vision Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-48). This included scores for overall visual ability and visual ability domains (reading, mobility, visual information processing, and visual motor skills). Each score was normalized into logit estimates by Rasch analysis. Linear regression models were used to compare the difference in the total score and each domain score between the two intervention groups. The significance level for each comparison was set at 0.05. Results: Both CB and HB groups showed significant improvement in overall visual ability at the final visit compared with baseline. The CB group showed greater improvement than the HB group (mean of 1.28 vs. 0.87 logits change), though the group difference is not significant (p = 0.057). The CB group visual motor skills score showed significant improvement over the HB group score (mean of 3.30 vs. 1.34 logits change, p = 0.044). The differences in improvement of the reading and visual information processing scores were not significant (p = 0.054 and p = 0.509) between groups. Neither group had significant improvement in the mobility score, which was not part of the rehabilitation program. Conclusions: Vision rehabilitation is effective for this study population regardless of location. Possible reasons why the CB group performed better than the HB group include a number of psychosocial factors as well as the more standardized distraction-free work environment within the clinic setting.