Research on the Perceptions of Low Vision Rehabilitation

Ki Won Jin; Ka Young Yi

doi:10.3341/jkos.2016.57.4.634

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.57(4) > 1010564

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jin and Yi: Research on the Perceptions of Low Vision Rehabilitation

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2016;57(4):634-641.

Published online: 3 September 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2016.57.4.634

Research on the Perceptions of Low Vision Rehabilitation

Ki Won Jin, MD, Ka Young Yi, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Ka Young Yi, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, #1 Singil-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 07441, Korea Tel: 82-2-829-5193, Fax: 82-2-848-4638 E-mail: harry92001@naver.com

Received 3 December 2015 Revised 18 February 2016 Accepted 21 March 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the understanding of low vision and awareness of low vision rehabilitation of non-health care providers and health care providers using a survey.

Methods

The present survey included 304 individuals; 137 non-health care providers (25 low vision patients, 38 non-low vision patients, and 74 normal controls) and 167 health care providers (51 ophthalmologists, 56 non-ophthalmic physicians, 24 nurses, and 36 medical technicians). The questionnaire used in the survey consisted of 10 items pertaining to the definition of low vision (3 items), assistance of low vision patients (3 items), awareness of the difficulties of low vision patients in daily life (3 items), and the understanding of low vision aids (1 item).

Results

The majority of participants, except ophthalmologists, were unaware of low vision rehabilitation. The perceptions of low vision rehabilitation between non-health care providers and health care providers except ophthalmologists were not different. The ophthalmologists showed a better understanding of low vision and awareness of low vision rehabilitation than other health care provider groups. However, no difference was found in the degree of understanding regarding low vision aids. Low vision patients showed the lowest rate of satisfaction with the environment around them and most experienced the greatest difficulties in public transportation and outside activities.

Conclusions

Although ophthalmologists showed a better understanding of low vision rehabilitation, their understanding of low vision aids was poor. Thus, there should be an effort to improve the ophthalmologists’ understanding regarding low vision care. To enhance low vision rehabilitation awareness, promotion of low vision services and education campaigns is necessary and a strategy concerning social welfare to improve the environment for low vision patients should be implemented.

Keywords: Low vision, Perception, Questionnaire, Visual rehabilitation

References

1. World Health Organization. The management of low vision in children. Report of a WHO consultation: Bangkok, July 1992. Geneva: World Health Organization;1993. WHO/PBL/93.27.

2. Strong JG, Pace RJ, Plotkin AD. Low vision services: a model for sequential intervention and rehabilitation. Can J Public Health. 1988; 79:S50–4.

3. Yang S, Khang YH, Harper S, et al. Understanding the rapid increase in life expectancy in South Korea. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100:896–903.

4. Park SH, Lee JS, Heo H, et al. A nationwide population-based study of low vision and blindness in South Korea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 56:484–93.

5. Markowitz SN. Principles of modern low vision rehabilitation. Can J Ophthalmol. 2006; 41:289–312.

6. Scott IU, Smiddy WE, Schiffman J, et al. Quality of life of low-vision patients and the impact of low-vision services. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999; 128:54–62.

7. Hinds A, Sinclair A, Park J, et al. Impact of an interdisciplinary low vision service on the quality of life of low vision patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003; 87:1391–6.

8. Raasch TW, Leat SJ, Kleinstein RN, et al. Evaluating the value of low-vision services. J Am Optom Assoc. 1997; 68:287–95.

9. Matti AI, Pesudovs K, Daly A, et al. Access to low-vision rehabilitation services: barriers and enablers. Clin Exp Optom. 2011; 94:181–6.

10. Pollard TL, Simpson JA, Lamoureux EL, Keeffe JE. Barriers to accessing low vision services. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003; 23:321–7.

11. Mwilambwe A, Wittich W, Freeman EE. Disparities in awareness and use of low-vision rehabilitation. Can J Ophthalmol. 2009; 44:686–91.

12. Lam N, Leat SJ. Barriers to accessing low-vision care: the patient's perspective. Can J Ophthalmol. 2013; 48:458–62.

13. Overbury O, Wittich W. Barriers to low vision rehabilitation: the Montreal Barriers Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52:8933–8.

14. Walter C, Althouse R, Humble H, et al. West Virginia survey of visual health: low vision and barriers to access. Vis Impair Res. 2004; 6:53–71.

15. Culham LE, Ryan B, Jackson AJ, et al. Low vision services for vision rehabilitation in the United Kingdom. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86:743–7.

16. Lovie-Kitchin JE. Low vision services in Australia. J Vis Impair Blind. 1990; 84:298–304.

17. World Health Organization. Asia Pacific Regional Low Vision Workshop. Geneva: World Health Organization;2002. WHO/ PBL/ 02. 87.

18. Park JH, Lee JY, Kim Y, Moon NJ. Epidemiological analysis and low vision rehabilitation of the visually impaired registered in Seoul. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:572–9.

19. Nia K, Markowitz SN. Provision and utilization of low-vision rehabilitation services in Toronto. Can J Ophthalmol. 2007; 42:698–702.

20. Laitinen A, Koskinen S, Rudanko SL, et al. Use of eye care services and need for assistance in the visually impaired. Optom Vis Sci. 2008; 85:341–9.

21. Rees G, Fenwick EK, Keeffe JE, et al. Detection of depression in patients with low vision. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86:1328–36.

22. Horowitz A, Reinhardt JP, Kennedy GJ. Major and subthreshold depression among older adults seeking vision rehabilitation services. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005; 13:180–7.

23. Low vision care: the need to maximise visual potential. Community Eye Health. 2004; 17:1–2.

24. Walter C, Althouse R, Humble H, et al. Vision rehabilitation: recipients’ perceived efficacy of rehabilitation. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007; 14:103–11.

25. Park JH, Moon NJ. Clinical analysis of 500 low vision patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:345–52.

26. Gold D, Zuvela B, Hodge WG. Perspectives on low vision service in Canada: a pilot study. Can J Ophthalmol. 2006; 41:348–54.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the study population

	Non-health care providers (n = 137)			Health care providers (n = 167)
	Low vision patients (n = 25)	Non-low vision patients (n = 38)	Normal controls (n = 74)	Ophthalmologists (n = 51)	Non-ophthalmic physicians (n = 56)	Nurses (n = 24)	Medical technicians (n = 36)
Age (years)	64.72 ± 17.25	59.13 ± 15.44	36.55 ± 14.91	32.47 ± 5.33	30.01 ± 2.97	31.04 ± 7.53	32.40 ± 8.79
Sex, male (n, %)	7 (28)	20 (53)	30 (42)	30 (65)	34 (69)	0 (0)	10 (38)
BCVA (better eye)	0.23 ± 0.24	0.85 ± 0.19
BCVA (fellow eye)	0.11 ± 0.18	0.45 ± 0.40

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

BCVA = best corrected visual acuity.

Table 2.

Comparison of responses to the questions: non-health care providers versus health care providers

Question number	Non-health care providers (n = 137)	Health care providers (n = 167)	p-value
No.1, positive answers (n, %)	50 (37)	100 (60)	0.000^*
No.3, positive answers (n, %)	84 (61)	109 (65)	0.476^*
No.4, positive answers (n, %)	63 (46)	96 (58)	0.046^*
No.5, positive answers (n, %)	47 (34)	71 (43)	0.144^*
No.6, mean score of five-point Likert scale points	2.38 ± 0.96	2.08 ± 0.91	0.094^†
No.7, mean score of five-point Likert scale points	3.58 ± 0.82	3.59 ± 0.91	0.280^†
No.8, most frequently chosen number of answer (n, %)	No.1, 67 (49)	No.1, 88 (53)	0.503^*
No.9, most frequently chosen number of answer (n, %)	No.1, 60 (44)	No.1, 85 (51)	0.022^*
No.10, positive answers (n)	3.39 ± 1.59	3.59 ± 1.66	0.631^†

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

^* p-value by Pearson's chi-square test;

^† p-value by Student t-test.

Table 3.

Comparison of responses to the questions among non-health care providers

Question number	Low vision patients (n = 25)	Non-low vision patients (n = 38)	Normal controls (n = 74)	p-value
No.1, positive answers (n, %)	12 (48)	14 (37)	24 (32)	0.376^*
No.3, positive answers (n, %)	19 (76)	23 (61)	42 (57)	0.231^*
No.4, positive answers (n, %)	16 (64)	21 (55)	26 (35)	0.018^*
No.5, positive answers (n, %)	13 (52)	12 (32)	22 (30)	0.117^*
No.6, mean score of five-point Likert scale points	2.44 ± 0.96	2.47 ± 1.08	2.32 ± 0.89	0.706^†
No.7, mean score of five-point Likert scale points	4.0 ± 0.70	3.55 ± 0.89	3.45 ± 0.77	0.015^†
No.8, most frequently chosen number of answer (n, %)	No.1, 13 (52)	No.1, 25 (66)	No.1, 29 (40)	0.003^*
No.9, most frequently chosen number of answer (n, %)	No.1, 14 (64)	No.1, 11 (30)	No.1, 35 (48)	0.549^*
No.10, positive answers (n)	3.15 ± 1.17	3.39 ± 1.76	3.45 ± 1.62	0.719^†

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

^* p-value by Pearson's chi-square test;

^† p-value by ANOVA.

Table 4.

Comparison of responses to the questions among health care providers

Variables	Ophthalmologists (n = 51)	Non-ophthalmic physicians (n = 56)	Nurses (n = 24)	Medical technicians (n = 36)	p-value
No.1, positive answers (n, %)	45 (88)	23 (41)	10 (42)	13 (36)	0.000^*
No.3, positive answers (n, %)	41 (80)	35 (63)	15 (63)	18 (50)	0.028^*
No.4, positive answers (n, %)	44 (86)	26 (46)	7 (29)	19 (53)	0.000^*
No.5, positive answers (n, %)	26 (51)	28 (50)	10 (42)	7 (19)	0.014^*
No.6, mean score of five-point Likert scale points	2.00 ± 0.63	2.16 ± 1.04	1.75 ± 0.73	2.28 ± 1.07	0.121^†
No.7, mean score of five-point Likert scale points	3.59 ± 0.83	3.48 ± 0.97	3.83 ± 0.81	3.58 ± 0.99	0.482^†
No.8, most frequently chosen number of answer (n, %)	No.1, 29 (57)	No.1, 30 (54)	No.1, 14 (67)	No.1, 15 (45)	0.881^*
No.9, most frequently chosen number of answer (n, %)	No.1, 28 (55)	No.1, 23 (42)	No.1, 16 (73)	No.1, 18 (51)	0.093^*
No.10, positive answers (n)	3.78 ± 1.76	3.83 ± 1.54	3.45 ± 1.86	3.02 ± 1.46	0.100^†

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

^* p-value by Pearson's chi-square test;

^† p-value by ANOVA.

TOOLS

Similar articles