ArticleClinical rehabilitation2026
Development of an easy-read version of the Brain Injury associated Visual Impairment - Impact Questionnaire (BIVI-IQ).
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThe Brain Injury associated Visual Impairment - Impact Questionnaire (BIVI-IQ) was developed to measure the impact of post-brain injury visual impairment. Communication and cognitive impairments are common brain injury sequelae and a barrier to completing standard patient reported outcome measures. The objective of this study was to develop and refine an easy-read version in order to meet recommendations to promote self-reporting.DesignEasy-read version development involved stakeholder input at several meetings. An iterative refinement process was used, involving a cognitive interview, until no new issues were identified.ParticipantsStroke survivors with visual impairment and/or aphasia and relevant healthcare professional were involved in the development stage. The clinical study recruited 12 stroke survivors with visual impairment.Main measuresParticipants completed the easy-read and standard versions. The researcher documented observations and time taken. Analysis assessed association and agreement between the two versions.ResultsDevelopment considered the structure, image selection and key words. Four iterations were used before five consecutive participants reported no new issues. Image amendments involved replacing four, revising four and adding three across eight of the 13 items. A preference for the easy-read version was reported by 45.5% completing both questionnaires (n = 11). A significant, strong positive correlation was found between the easy-read and standard version total scores. Weighted Kappa found significant agreement between 12 items.ConclusionsThe easy-read version, using images to support the question wording, will increase accessibility for brain injury survivors with communication and/or cognitive difficulties. It is acceptable and further evaluation of this version is now required.
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.