Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1/2017

01-02-2017 | Review Article

Patient-Centered Outcome Measures to Assess Functioning in Randomized Controlled Trials of Low-Vision Rehabilitation: A Review

Authors: Joshua R. Ehrlich, George L. Spaeth, Noelle E. Carlozzi, Paul P. Lee

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Low-vision rehabilitation (LVR) aims to improve the functioning of patients with chronic uncorrectable visual impairment. LVR is inherently a patient-centered intervention since its approach and goals are dictated by the needs and abilities of each individual patient. Accordingly, it is essential to have patient-centered outcome (PCO) measures to assess and compare the efficacy and effectiveness of low-vision interventions; however, there is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of LVR interventions. We reviewed the literature in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of LVR and the outcome measures used to assess patient functioning in these trials. We identified 15 RCTs of LVR that employed nine unique patient-reported, five unique performance-based, and one hybrid (combined patient-reported and performance) outcome measures. Since these trials used distinct tools to assess patient functioning, it is difficult to compare the effectiveness of competing rehabilitation interventions across studies. Selecting valid outcome measures that are both relevant to LVR goals of specific patient populations and that measure functioning across a range of visually demanding tasks could improve the ability to detect the effect of LVR and to compare rehabilitation strategies. There are advantages and limitations to the use of both patient-reported and performance-based outcome measures, and additional work should be undertaken to explore the relationship between these modes of assessment, as well as strategies for optimally integrating these approaches. Careful selection of outcome measures in the design of future RCTs in LVR may lead to improved understanding of the effectiveness of LVR and, ultimately, to improved functioning of patients with low vision.
Literature
1.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Vision research—a national plan: 1999–2003. Bethesda: National Eye Institute. NIH Publication 98-4120.
2.
3.
Congdon N, O’Colmain B, Klaver CCW, Klein R, Muñoz B, Friedman DS, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:477–85.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Binns AM, Bunce C, Dickinson C, Harper R, Tudor-Edwards R, Woodhouse M, et al. How effective is low vision service provision? A systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2012;57:34–65.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Jampel HD. Patient-centered outcomes research: evolution, definition, and implications. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:655–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Reda DJ, Rinne S, Mancil RM, Massof RW, et al. Outcomes of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT). Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:608–17.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD, et al. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1050–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Massof RW. Understanding Rasch and Item Response Theory Models: applications to the estimation and validation of interval latent trait measures from responses to rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2011;18:1–19.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Warrian KJ, Altangerel U, Spaeth GL. Performance-based measures of visual function. Surv Ophthalmol. 2010;55:146–61.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Richman J, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, Mayer JR, Wizov SS, et al. Relationships in glaucoma patients between standard vision tests, quality of life, and ability to perform daily activities. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2010;17:144–51.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, Opzoomer A, Polatajko H, Pollock N. The Canadian occupational performance measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1990;57:82–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kempen GI, Miedema I, Ormel J, Molenaar W. The assessment of disability with the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Conceptual framework and psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43:1601–10.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Sonn U, Asberg KH. Assessment of activities of daily living in the elderly. A study of a population of 76-year-olds in Gothenburg, Sweden. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1991;23:193–202.PubMed
16.
Baum C, Edwards D. Activity card sort: test manual. St Louis: Washington University School of Medicine; 2001.
17.
Stelmack JA, Stelmack TR, Massof RW. Measuring low-vision rehabilitation outcomes with the NEI VFQ-25. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2859–68.PubMed
18.
Massof RW, Stelmack JA. Interpretation of low-vision rehabilitation outcome measures. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:788–98.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Massof RW. A systems model for low vision rehabilitation: II. Measurement of vision disabilities. Optom Vis Sci. 1998;75:349–73.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Becker SW, Lambert RW, Schulz EM, Wright BD, Burnet DL. An instrument to measure the activity level of the blind. Int J Rehabil Res. 1985;8:415–24.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Weih LM, Hassell JB, Keeffe J. Assessment of the impact of vision impairment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:927–35.PubMed
22.
Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL. Design of the low vision quality-of-life questionnaire (LVQOL) and measuring the outcome of low-vision rehabilitation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:793–802.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Stelmack JA, Szlyk JP, Stelmack TR, Demers-Turco P, Williams RT, Moran D, et al. Psychometric properties of the Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3919–28.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Massof RW, Ahmadian L, Grover LL, Deremeik JT, Goldstein JE, Rainey C, et al. The Activity Inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:763–74.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Rovner BW, Casten RJ, Hegel MT, Massof RW, Leiby BE, Ho AC, et al. Improving function in age-related macular degeneration: a randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1649–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Pearce E, Crossland MD, Rubin GS. The efficacy of low vision device training in a hospital-based low vision clinic. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:105–8.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Dunbar HMP, Crossland MD, Bunce C, Egan C, Rubin GS. The effect of low vision rehabilitation in diabetic eye disease: a randomised controlled trial protocol. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012;32:282–93.CrossRefPubMed
28.
McCabe P, Nason F, Demers Turco P, Friedman D, Seddon JM. Evaluating the effectiveness of a vision rehabilitation intervention using an objective and subjective measure of functional performance. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2000;7:259–70.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Lamoureux EL, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. The Impact of Vision Impairment Questionnaire: an evaluation of its measurement properties using Rasch analysis. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4732.CrossRef
30.
Lamoureux EL, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, Rees G, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. The effectiveness of low-vision rehabilitation on participation in daily living and quality of life. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1476–82.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Christy B, Keeffe JE, Nirmalan PK, Rao GN. A randomized controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of strategies delivering low vision rehabilitation: design and baseline characteristics of study participants. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2010;17:203–10.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Finger RP, Tellis B, Crewe J, Keeffe JE, Ayton LN, Guymer RH. Developing the impact of Vision Impairment–Very Low Vision (IVI–VLV) questionnaire as part of the LoVADA protocol. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:6150–8.CrossRefPubMed
33.
van Nispen RMA, Knol DL, Langelaan M, van Rens GHMB. Re-evaluating a vision-related quality of life questionnaire with item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:125.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
van Nispen RMA, Knol DL, Neve HJ, van Rens GHMB. A multilevel item response theory model was investigated for longitudinal vision-related quality-of-life data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:321–30.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Burggraaff MC, van Nispen RMA, Knol DL, Ringens PJ, van Rens GHMB. Randomized controlled trial on the effects of CCTV training on quality of life, depression, and adaptation to vision loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:3645–52.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Mangione CM, Berry S, Spritzer K, et al. Identifying the content area for the 51-item national eye institute visual function questionnaire: results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:227–33.PubMed
37.
Marella M, Pesudovs K, Keeffe JE, O’Connor PM, Rees G, Lamoureux EL. The psychometric validity of the NEI VFQ-25 for use in a low-vision population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:2878–84.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Brody BL, Roch-Levecq A-C, Gamst AC, Maclean K, Kaplan RM, Brown SI. Self-management of age-related macular degeneration and quality of life: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1477–83.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Scanlan JM, Cuddeford JE. Low vision rehabilitation: a comparison of traditional and extended teaching programs. J Vis Impair Blind. 2004;98:601–10.
40.
Zijlstra GA, van Rens GH, Scherder EJ, Brouwer DM, van der Velde J, Verstraten PF, et al. Effects and feasibility of a standardised orientation and mobility training in using an identification cane for older adults with low vision: design of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:153.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Smith HJ, Dickinson CM, Cacho I, Reeves BC, Harper RA. A randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of prism spectacles for patients with age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1042–50.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Szlyk JP, Stelmack J, Massof RW, Stelmack TR, Demers-Turco P, Williams RT, et al. Performance of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. J Vis Impair Blind. 2004;98:261–75.
43.
Stelmack JA, Szlyk JP, Stelmack TR, Demers-Turco P, Williams RT, Moran D, et al. Measuring outcomes of vision rehabilitation with the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:3253.CrossRef
44.
Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Reda DJ, Stroupe KT, Rinne S, Massof RW, et al. VA LOVIT II: a protocol to compare low vision rehabilitation and basic low vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012;32:461–71.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Legge GE, Ross JA, Luebker A, LaMay JM. Psychophysics of reading. VIII. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test. Optom Vis Sci. 1989;66:843–53.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Baldasare J, Watson GR, Whittaker SG, Miller-Shaffer H. The development and evaluation of a reading test for low vision individuals with macular loss. J Vis Impair Blind. 1986;80(6):785–9.
47.
Radner W, Obermayer W, Richter-Mueksch S, Willinger U, Velikay-Parel M, Eisenwort B. The validity and reliability of short German sentences for measuring reading speed. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;240:461–7.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Ebert EM, Fine AM, Markowitz J, Maguire MG, Starr JS, Fine SL. Functional vision in patients with neovascular maculopathy and poor visual acuity. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104:1009–12.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Ramulu PY, Swenor BK, Jefferys JL, Rubin GS. Description and validation of a test to evaluate sustained silent reading. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:673–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
51.
Stelmack J, Stelmack TR, Fraim M, Warrington J. Clinical use of the Pepper Visual Skills for Reading Test in low vision rehabilitation. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1987;64:829–31.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Calabrèse A, Owsley C, McGwin G, Legge GE. Development of a Reading Accessibility Index using the MNREAD acuity chart. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:398–405.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Burggraaff MC, van Nispen RMA, Hoeben FP, Knol DL, van Rens GHMB. Randomized controlled trial on the effects of training in the use of closed-circuit television on reading performance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2142–50.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Haymes SA, Johnston AW, Heyes AD. The development of the Melbourne low-vision ADL index: a measure of vision disability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1215–25.PubMed
55.
Haymes SA, Johnston AW, Heyes AD. Preliminary investigation of the responsiveness of the Melbourne Low Vision ADL index to low-vision rehabilitation. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:373–80.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Haymes SA, Johnston AW, Heyes AD. A weighted version of the Melbourne Low-Vision ADL index: a measure of disability impact. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:565–79.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Friedman SM, Munoz B, Rubin GS, West SK, Bandeen-Roche K, Fried LP. Characteristics of discrepancies between self-reported visual function and measured reading speed. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project Team. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:858–64.PubMed
58.
Szlyk JP, Seiple W, Fishman GA, Alexander KR, Grover S, Mahler CL. Perceived and actual performance of daily tasks: relationship to visual function tests in individuals with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:65–75.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Guralnik JM, Branch LG, Cummings SR, Curb JD. Physical performance measures in aging research. J Gerontol. 1989;44:M141–6.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Goldstein JE, Jackson ML, Fox SM, Deremeik JT, Massof RW, Low Vision Research Network Study Group. Clinically meaningful rehabilitation outcomes of low vision patients served by outpatient clinical centers. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:762–9.CrossRefPubMed
61.
West SK, Rubin GS, Munoz B, Abraham D, Fried LP. Assessing functional status: correlation between performance on tasks conducted in a clinic setting and performance on the same task conducted at home. The Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project Team. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1997;52:M209–17.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Massof RW. A general theoretical framework for interpreting patient-reported outcomes estimated from ordinally scaled item responses. Stat Methods Med Res. 2014;23:409–29.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Rosen PN, Boer ER, Gracitelli CPB, Abe RY, Diniz-Filho A, Marvasti AH, et al. A portable platform for evaluation of visual performance in glaucoma patients. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0139426.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
64.
65.
Noe G, Ferraro J, Lamoureux E, Rait J, Keeffe JE. Associations between glaucomatous visual field loss and participation in activities of daily living. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003;31:482–6.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Brown JC, Goldstein JE, Chan TL, Massof R, Ramulu P, Low Vision Research Network Study Group. Characterizing functional complaints in patients seeking outpatient low-vision services in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1655–1662):e1.
67.
Turano KA, Geruschat DR, Stahl JW, Massof RW. Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:865–77.PubMed
68.
Jadad AR, Enkin MW. Bias in randomized controlled trials. In: Jadad A, Enkin M, editors. Randomized controlled trials: questions, answers and musings. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2008. p. 29–47.
69.
Jampel HD, Frick KD, Janz NK, Wren PA, Musch DC, Rimal R, et al. Depression and mood indicators in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:238–44.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Ramulu PY, West SK, Munoz B, Jampel HD, Friedman DS. Glaucoma and reading speed: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation project. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:82–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
71.
McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, van Haselen R, Griffin M, Fisher P. The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
72.
Atasavun Uysal S, Düger T. Visual perception training on social skills and activity performance in low-vision children. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19:33–41.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Ballemans J, Zijlstra GAR, van Rens GHMB, Schouten JSAG, Kempen GIJM. Usefulness and acceptability of a standardised orientation and mobility training for partially-sighted older adults using an identification cane. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:141.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Eklund K, Sjöstrand J, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. A randomized controlled trial of a health-promotion programme and its effect on ADL dependence and self-reported health problems for the elderly visually impaired. Scand J Occup Ther. 2008;15:68–74.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Girdler SJ, Boldy DP, Dhaliwal SS, Crowley M, Packer TL. Vision self-management for older adults: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:223–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient-Centered Outcome Measures to Assess Functioning in Randomized Controlled Trials of Low-Vision Rehabilitation: A Review
Authors
Joshua R. Ehrlich
George L. Spaeth
Noelle E. Carlozzi
Paul P. Lee
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0189-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1/2017 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Readability and Comprehension of the Geriatric Depression Scale and PROMIS® Physical Function Items in Older African Americans and Latinos

Original Research Article

Item Reduction, Scoring, and First Validation of the ACCEPTance by the Patients of their Treatment (ACCEPT©) Questionnaire

Systematic Review

Patient Preferences for Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Literature Review

Original Research Article

Engaging Patient Advocates and Other Stakeholders to Design Measures of Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care

Original Research Article

EQ-5D Health Utility Scores: Data from a Comprehensive Canadian Cancer Centre

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis of Patients’ Experiences and Perceptions of Seeking and Using Benzodiazepines and Z-Drugs: Towards Safer Prescribing
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits