ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2020
Online Survey of Digital Reading by Adults with Low Vision.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Developments in Research to Make the World Better for People with Low Vision.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- VI-OCR: "Visually Impaired" optical character recognition pipeline for text accessibility assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Screen Magnification for Readers with Low Vision: A Study on Usability and Performance.ASSETS. Annual ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of the Life for Low Vision Questionnaire (LIFE4LVQ) Using Rasch Analysis: A Questionnaire Evaluating Ability and Independence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Reconciling print-size and display-size constraints on reading.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
significanceAccess to digital text is increasingly widespread, but its impact on low-vision reading is not well understood. PURPOSE: We conducted an online survey of people with low vision to determine what assistive technologies they use for visual reading, their preferred text characteristics, and the time they devote to reading digital and hard-copy text.
methodsOne hundred thirty-three low-vision participants completed an online survey. Participants reported the nature and history of their low vision, their usage of different assistive technologies, and time devoted to five visual reading activities.
resultsThe three largest diagnostic categories were albinism (n = 36), retinitis pigmentosa (n = 20), and glaucoma (n = 15). Mean self-reported acuity was 0.93 logMAR (range, 0.1 to 1.6 logMAR). Mean age was 46 years (range, 18 to 98 years). Participants reported on percentage time spent reading using vision, audio, or touch (braille). Seventy-five percent of our participants did more than 50% of their reading visually. Across five categories of reading activities-work or education, news, pleasure, spot reading, and social networking-participants reported more time spent on digital reading than hard-copy reading. Eighty-nine percent of our participants used at least one technology from each of our two major categories of assistive technologies (digital content magnifiers and hard-copy content magnifiers) for visual reading.
conclusionsDespite the growing availability of digital text in audio or braille formats, our findings from an online sample of people with low vision indicate the continuing importance of visual reading. Our participants continue to use technology to access both hard-copy and digital text, but more time is devoted to digital reading. Our findings highlight the need for continued research and development of technology to enhance visual reading accessibility.
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.