ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2018
Utilization and Abandonment of Low Vision Devices Prescribed on a Mobile Clinic.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Usefulness of a Wearable Electronic Vision Enhancement System for People With Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Trial
- Perspectives From Canadian People With Visual Impairments in Everyday Environments Outside the Home: Qualitative Insights for Assistive Technology Development.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
- From abandonment to adoption: advancing assistive technologies for blindness and low vision in the AI era.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- A review of optical and digital aids for magnification techniques in low-vision rehabilitation.Journal of biological methods · 2025Review
- Compliance With the Use of Low-Vision Aids in a Greek Population: An Explorative Study.Cureus · 2023Article
- Bluetooth Low Energy Beacon Sensors to Document Handheld Magnifier Use at Home by People with Low Vision.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Lockdown low vision assessment: an audit of 500 telephone-based modified low vision consultations.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2021Article
- Design considerations for the ideal low vision aid: insights from de-brief interviews following a real-world recording study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2021Article
- Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products - A 6-year review.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
significanceDevice utilization and abandonment for patients seen on a mobile clinic are explored. Findings are informative for resource allocation in a novel low vision rehabilitation (LVR) delivery model. This study also explores the relationships between device abandonment and LVR patient-reported functional outcomes. PURPOSE: This prospective cohort study investigated low vision device utilization and abandonment in a novel mobile clinic delivery model.
methodsA device abandonment questionnaire was administered by telephone 3 months and 1 year after mobile clinic LVR. Participants (n = 65) had previously met the U.S. definition of legal blindness and were prescribed a total of 154 devices at their low vision consultative visits. Trends in device utilization and correlations with clinical and demographic participant characteristics, as well as functional outcomes as assessed by Massof Activity Inventory, are explored.
resultsAn average of 2.6 device recommendations were made per participant. Digital magnification, optical magnifiers, and filters were most frequently recommended. At 3 months, 29% of participants abandoned at least one device, although only 17% of received devices were abandoned. There was no significant difference in the number of devices used, abandoned, or not received at 3 months versus 1 year after LVR. Devices prescribed for reading goals were most frequently used and least often abandoned, whereas glare control and distance magnification devices were more frequently abandoned. Neither patient characteristics nor Massof Activity Inventory change score was predictive of device abandonment. There was no significant difference in the odds of device abandonment in comparison with a previous study that assessed academic outpatient LVR clinics using the same questionnaire.
conclusionsAlthough more device recommendations are given per patient on the mobile clinic, there is no significant difference in device abandonment for patients seen on the mobile clinic versus other outpatient LVR delivery models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.