Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well-being from a prospective, randomized study

• Published in: Digital journal of ophthalmology 2017, Vol.23 (1), p.1-10
• Main Authors: Jackson, Mary Lou, Schoessow, Kimberly A, Selivanova, Alexandra, Wallis, Jennifer
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Double-Blind Method; Eyeglasses; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Original; Pilot Projects; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Reading; Sensory Aids; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vision, Low - physiopathology; Vision, Low - rehabilitation; Visual Acuity
• ISSN: 1542-8958; 1542-8958
• DOI: 10.5693/djo.01.2017.02.001

Both optical and electronic magnification are available to patients with low vision. Electronic video magnifiers are more expensive than optical magnifiers, but they offer additional benefits, including variable magnification and contrast. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of access to a video magnifier (VM) added to standard comprehensive vision rehabilitation (VR). In this prospective study, 37 subjects with central field loss were randomized to receive standard VR (VR group, 18 subjects) or standard VR plus VM (VM group, 19 subjects). Subjects read the International Reading Speed Texts (IReST), a bank check, and a phone number at enrollment, at 1 month, and after occupational therapy (OT) as indicated to address patient goals. The Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire, a version of the Activity Inventory (AI), and the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) were administered at enrollment, 1 month, after OT, 1 month later, and 1 year after enrollment. Assessments at enrollment and 1 month later were evaluated. At 1 month, the VM group displayed significant improvement in reading continuous print as measured by the IReST ( = 0.01) but did not differ on IVI, AI, or DASS. From enrollment to 1 month all subjects improved in their ability to spot read (phone number and check; < 0.01 for both). The VM group improved in their ability to find and read a number in a phone book more than the VR group at 1 month after initial consultation ( = 0.02). All reported better well-being ( = 0.02). All subjects reported better well-being on the IVI. The VM group read faster and was better at two spot reading tasks but did not differ from the VR group in other outcome measures.