Trial reportTranslational vision science & technology2022
Acceptability of Telerehabilitation for Magnification Devices for the Visually Impaired Using Various Approaches to Facilitate Accessibility.
Trial report in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Beacon Sensors & Telerehabilitation to Assess & Improve Use of Devices for Visual Functioning
Beacon Sensors and Telerehabilitation to Assess and Improve Use of Devices (BeST-AID) for Low Vision
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of Telerehabilitation Versus In-Office Training With Magnification Devices for Low Vision: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Trial
- Global Patterns of Visual Disability and Low Vision Aid Prescription: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Advances in Technology-Assisted Visual Rehabilitation Therapies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Application of mobile health (mHealth) in the field of eye care: A scoping review of interventions used by individuals and health services to communicate.AJO international · 2025Article
- Technical development and user experience evaluation of the Computerised version of the Sydney Test of Activities of daily living in Memory disorders (C-STAM).Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Topical Review: Clinical, Physiological, and Functional Benefits of Home-based Telerehabilitation with Occupational Therapists for Low Vision.International journal of telerehabilitation · 2025Review
- A review of optical and digital aids for magnification techniques in low-vision rehabilitation.Journal of biological methods · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: We examined different methods to reduce the burden of accessing technology for videoconferencing during telerehabilitation for magnification devices for the visually impaired. Methods: During telerehabilitation studies over the past 5 years, vision rehabilitation providers assessed and gave training to visually impaired participants with newly dispensed magnification devices at home who connected to Zoom videoconferencing via loaner tablets or smartphones with assistance from (phase 1; n = 10) investigators by phone, (phase 2; n = 11) local Lions Club volunteers in participants' homes, or (phase 3; n = 24) remote access control software in a randomized controlled trial with 13 usual care controls who received in-office training. All participants completed the same post-telerehabilitation phone survey. Results: A significantly greater proportion of phase 3 subjects indicated they strongly or mostly agreed that the technology did not interfere with the session (96%) compared to phase 1 (60%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-12.5; P = 0.03) or phase 2 (55%; 95% CI, 1.8-188; P = 0.01). The majority indicated telerehabilitation was as accurate as in person (68%), they were comfortable with telerehabilitation (91%) and interested in a future session (83%), and their magnifier use improved (79%), with no significant differences in these responses between phases (all P > 0.10), including comparisons of participants randomized to telerehabilitation or in-office training in phase 3 who reported similar overall satisfaction levels (P = 0.84). Conclusions: Participants across all phases reported high levels of acceptance for telerehabilitation, with least interference from technology using remote access control in phase 3. Translational Relevance: With accommodations for accessibility to videoconferencing technology, telerehabilitation for magnification devices can be a feasible, acceptable, and valuable option in countries with resources to support the technology.
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.