Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39927516›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2025

Self-management interventions for quality of life in adults with visual impairment.

Alexis Malkin, Ashley Deemer, Melissa Contreras, Heather Edmonds, Adrienne C Quan, Jenna Koskey, Mary Kate Walters, Sueko M Ng, John G Lawrenson

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Alexis MalkinNew England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ashley DeemerMarshall B. Ketchum University, Southern California College of Optometry, Fullerton, California, USA.
Melissa ContrerasMarshall B. Ketchum University, Southern California College of Optometry, Fullerton, California, USA.
Heather EdmondsNew England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Adrienne C QuanChicago College of Optometry, Midwestern University, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA.
Jenna KoskeyEugene VA Healthcare Center, Eugene, Oregon, USA.
Mary Kate WaltersUniversity of Houston College of Optometry, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Sueko M NgDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
John G LawrensonCentre for Applied Vision Research, School of Health and Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleVisual impairment is a major health concern that predominantly impacts older adults due to age-related ocular diseases. Visual impairment affects more than 2200 million people worldwide and may lead to functional and psychological decline, emphasizing the need for effective self-management interventions. Self-management interventions aim to enhance individuals' abilities to manage their condition, maintain activities of daily living, and improve overall well-being.

objectivesTo assess the effects of self-management interventions on quality of life in adults with visual impairment compared with inactive or active (usual care) control interventions. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registries, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was on 19 May 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multifaceted self-management interventions in adults with acquired visual impairment (including dual sensory impairment). OUTCOMES: Outcomes assessed were overall and subscores of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and vision-related quality of life (VRQoL) scores at the end of follow-up, adverse events during the study period, and vision-related living performance measures at the end of follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We assessed the risk of bias for three outcomes reported in a summary of findings table using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. SYNTHESIS

methodsWe synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analysis where possible, by calculating standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes. Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we provided a narrative summary of the results. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for prespecified outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 20 parallel-group RCTs that enrolled 3151 participants. The size of studies ranged from 30 to 323 participants with a median of 153 participants. Studies were conducted in Asia (two studies), Australia (two), Europe (six), and North America (10) in academic medical centers, hospitals, low-vision clinics, private practice, rehabilitation centers, and Veterans Affairs medical facilities. The participants were older adults with a mean age across the included studies ranging from 60 to 84 years. The mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity ranged from 0.15 to 1.11. Age-related macular degeneration was the predominant cause of low vision in 15 studies. We did not identify any eligible studies for adults with dual sensory impairment. One study was funded by industry, whereas others received a research grant or support from a non-profit organization or foundation. Multifaceted self-management interventions included in this review were diverse. The control group was placed on a wait list, while other active controls included usual care, optical aids, or low-vision rehabilitation. SYNTHESIS OF

resultsWe rated the overall risk of bias of included studies as low or some concerns. The meta-analysis revealed consistent findings across different outcomes and comparisons. For HRQoL, evidence suggests that self-management intervention may result in little to no difference in HRQoL (change score: SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.15; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsIn this review, we found low-certainty evidence that multifaceted self-management interventions have little or no effects on improving HRQoL and VRQoL for adults with visual impairment. Research is needed to develop more sensitive measures of quality of life and to assess the benefit of such interventions across a broader demographic, including different stages of vision impairment and people with dual-sensory impairment.

fundingCochrane Eyes and Vision US Project is supported by grant UG1EY020522, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015790.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSelf-ManagementVision DisordersActivities of Daily LivingAdultAgedBiasHumansMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID39927516
PMCPMC11808833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.