IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v10y2017i1d10.1007_s40271-016-0189-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua R. Ehrlich

    (University of Michigan
    University of Michigan
    University of Michigan)

  • George L. Spaeth

    (Wills Eye Hospital)

  • Noelle E. Carlozzi

    (University of Michigan
    University of Michigan
    University of Michigan)

  • Paul P. Lee

    (University of Michigan
    University of Michigan
    University of Michigan)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua R. Ehrlich & George L. Spaeth & Noelle E. Carlozzi & Paul P. Lee, 2017. "Patient-Centered Outcome Measures to Assess Functioning in Randomized Controlled Trials of Low-Vision Rehabilitation: A Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(1), pages 39-49, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0189-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0189-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-016-0189-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-016-0189-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0189-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.