Abstract
Introduction
The aim of this study was twofold: (1) to investigate the clinical impact of vision rehabilitation in patients with vision impairment and (2) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a basic vision rehabilitation service in Portugal.
Methods
The trial recruited patients diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration or diabetic retinopathy (DR) and visual acuity in the range 0.4–1.0logMAR in the better-seeing eye. Participants were randomised to one of the study arms consisting of immediate intervention and delayed intervention. The intervention included: new refractive correction, optical reading aids, in-office training and advice about modifications at home. Visual ability, health-related quality of life and costs were measured. Economic analysis was performed to evaluate whether the intervention was cost-effective. The trial compared the outcomes 12 weeks after the start in both arms.
Results
Of the 46 participants, 34 (74%) were diagnosed with DR, 25 (54%) were female, and mean age was 70.08 years (SD = 8.74). In the immediate intervention arm visual ability increased a mean of 0.523 logits (SE = 0.11) (p < 0.001). Changes in the delayed intervention arm were not statistically significant (p = 0.95). Acuity in the better-seeing eye, near acuity and critical print size also improved during the study. The mean cost of the intervention was €118.79 (SD = 24.37). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using the EQ-5D-5L was 30,421€/QALY and 1186€/QALY when using near acuity.
Conclusion
The current study gives evidence of positive clinical impact of a basic vision rehabilitation intervention and shows that a basic vision rehabilitation service is cost-effective. These findings are important to clinical and rehabilitation practices and for planning vision rehabilitation services.
Trial Registration
Retrospectively registered, 21/01/2019. ISRCTN10894889, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10894889
Plain Language Summary
There is limited research addressing the actual impact of vision rehabilitation. The current trial compares the effect of a basic vision rehabilitation intervention with usual care on patients’ functioning. The intervention was clinically impactful and cost-effective.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
People with sight loss can have vision impairment that leads to disabilities and handicaps. |
There is currently a lack of evidence about the cost-effectiveness of basic low vision rehabilitation to tackle low vision-related disabilities. |
The current study confirmed that a basic low vision rehabilitation intervention reduces disabilities and improves quality of life in people with impaired vision. Findings revealed that such interventions are cost-effective. |
The current study provides the evidence needed to include low vision rehabilitation as part of the clinical referral pathway where services exist. |
The study raises the need to further research and develop vision rehabilitation services and education for optometrists, ophthalmologists and related professionals. |
Introduction
Globally, millions of people live with some level of vision impairment (VI) [1,2,3]. VI is a common cause of disability affecting patients’ well-being, mental health, activities of daily living and social functioning (e.g. independence or difficulties in finding a job) [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. VI leads to significant economic burdens due to direct costs (inpatient and outpatient care) and indirect costs (informal care or productivity losses) [7, 8, 11,12,13,14]. For example, reduced independence to perform activities of daily living can lead to fewer job opportunities due to reduced ability to work [15,16,17]. Vision rehabilitation can be effective in tackling these limitations and promoting independent living and autonomy in people with VI [18].
Vision rehabilitation (VR) can be defined as a mixture of health, educational and social interventions whose ultimate goal is to reduce the negative impact of VI. The aim of these services is to improve visual ability (the ability to perform tasks that rely on vision) [19, 20] and other aspects associated with VI such as the psychosocial burden [18, 21]. VR works by enhancing visual function, which includes, for example, the use of assistive devices or changes in the visual environment such as improved lighting. VR often requires the acquisition of new skills such as handling assistive devices or accessibility features in ordinary electronic devices [22, 23]. With rehabilitation, activities that rely on vision are expected to become easier to perform even without improvement in visual acuity [6, 21, 24, 25].
The Portuguese visual impairment study group (PORVIS group) [26] has carried out some studies showing that VI is common in Portugal and that many people are still struggling to cope with the condition [7,8,9, 26,27,28,29]. The prevalence of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in Portugal is close to 13% [30] and the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) amongst people diagnosed with diabetes is close to 16% [31]. A recent study has revealed that DR and AMD are the two most common causes of irreversible VI in Portugal [29]. In general, there is a lack of studies examining the benefits of VR for people with VI, which hinders the development of vision rehabilitation systems (VRS) [32,33,34,35]. Magnifiers, for example, have been regularly dispensed in many hospitals since at least 1970 [36]. However, a systematic review showed that better evidence on the benefits of using magnifiers is necessary [37]. In short, more research addressing the actual impact of VR on patients’ functioning is needed to inform clinicians and rehabilitation professionals on the best practice for visually impaired patients.
The aim of this trial was twofold: (1) to assess the effect of a basic vision rehabilitation intervention on visual ability in people with impaired vision and (2) to report the cost-effectiveness of a basic vision rehabilitation service provided in a Portuguese setting.
Methods
This study was part of a clinical trial addressing the cost-effectiveness of a basic vision rehabilitation service in Portugal (registration number: ISRCTN10894889). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Life Sciences and Health of the University of Minho (SECVS 147/2016) and the Hospital Santa Maria Maior’s ethics committee, Portuguese data protection authority approval number: 7012/2017. Patients gave written informed consent for participation in this study. The study conformed to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Patients attending outpatient appointments at the department of ophthalmology at a public hospital in Portugal were invited to participate in this study. The inclusion criteria were: (1) visual acuity between 0.4 and 1.0 logMAR in the better-seeing eye; (2) primary diagnosis and main cause of vision loss should be diabetic retinopathy or age-related macular degeneration; (3) 18 years or older; (4) living in the community (not living in any type of institution). The exclusion criteria were: (1) cognitive impairment based on scores on mini-mental state examination; (2) communication problems due to, for example, hearing impairment or inability to speak Portuguese; (3) inability to read because of a low level of education; (4) inability to attend the requested appointments at the study setting.
The study design was a parallel group, 1:1 allocation ratio randomised controlled trial. Participants were allocated to an immediate intervention arm (IMI) or a delayed intervention arm (DEI). The IMI arm received the intervention at the first visit (baseline); the DEI arm was used as control for a possible effect of ‘attention to the problem’ and participants were put on a waiting list—participants in this arm only received the intervention in the second visit—12 weeks after the start of the study.
The basic vision rehabilitation intervention (VRI) consisted of three main components: (1) prescription, when necessary, of the best refractive correction for distance vision; (2) prescription of magnification for reading (near glasses or handheld magnifiers); (3) instructions and training. The detailed procedure for each step of the intervention has been published as part of the study protocol [38]. The intervention was defined by the research team and based on the local circumstances and their knowledge about the needs of visually impaired people in Portugal. The intervention was also in line with the recommendations of the WHO Package of Eye Care Interventions-Annex 6 released in 2022 [39].
Main Outcome Measure and Vision Measures
Main Outcome
Visual ability was measured with the Portuguese version of Massof Activity Inventory (AI) [7, 8, 40, 41]. The AI consists of a hierarchal structure in which specific cognitive and motor visual tasks (e.g., pouring or mixing without spilling) underlie more global goals (e.g., preparing meals) [42, 43]. Disabilities occur when an individual reports difficulty in achieving important goals. Goals are split among three objectives—social functioning, recreation and daily living—associated with four classes of function: reading, visual motor (also called manipulation), visual information (also called seeing) and mobility [42, 43]. Goals rated “not important” are skipped and as such are not considered in the final visual ability score as these are not relevant to the person’s daily life. For goals rated “slightly important” or beyond, participants are asked to rate difficulty on a five-point scale ranging from “not difficult” to “impossible to do” [42, 43].
Vision Outcomes
Distance visual acuity (VA) was measured with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts in a dimly lit room using an internally illuminated cabinet (model 2425E). Near VA was assessed with near version of the ETDRS charts (https://www.precision-vision.com/). VA was measured monocularly at distance and binocularly at near. At both distances a letter-by-letter scoring was used [41, 44]. Testing distance was adjusted according to the severity of vision loss; final acuity scores reported were adjusted to standard distances (4 m at distance and 40 cm at near).
Reading was tested to determine vision-related reading difficulties. Specifically, we measured: (1) reading acuity (RA), (2) maximum reading speed (MRS) and (3) critical print size (CPS) using the Portuguese version of Minnesota low vision Reading Test (MNread test) [45,46,47]. Reading was measured binocularly at 40 cm or 20 cm according to the needs. After the intervention, reading was assessed with the prescribed aid.
Contrast sensitivity was assessed binocularly at 40 cm with near correction using the MARS test (https://www.marsperceptrix.com/), which has a gradual letter-by-letter contrast. In line with the test settings, illuminance on the surface of the test was approximately 330 lux. Participants were encouraged to respond until two consecutive letters were read incorrectly; scoring was performed according to the test instructions.
Economic Evaluation
Measures of Costs
Rehabilitation costs included: hospital costs, distance glasses (when necessary), near glasses and handheld magnifiers. The hospital costs included overheads for facilities and equipment and optometrist’s time. Costs for optical devices prescribed were inputed using the price recommended for the public [38]. Costs were estimated using the health care system perspective. We estimated a cost of €4.84 for each appointment for the material and equipment (e.g., visual tests and visual aids trial set) needed to provide a basic rehabilitation in a hospital. The time spent by the rehabilitation optometrist with each patient was 1 h 45 min at 8.35 €/hour (15 min preparation, 1 h examination and 30 min dispensing and training). Overhead hospital costs included administrative and clerical support and were estimated using hospital annual reporting costs for the ophthalmology department (€11.81 per patient). Magnifiers and/or lenses for glasses were also included in the cost’s estimation.
Measures of Effectiveness
Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was accessed with the EuroQol five-dimension, 5-point response scale questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). This questionnaire comprises five dimensions which have five possible levels of response. Three dimensions are related to function (Mobility, Self-Care and Usual Activities) and the other two describe feelings (Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression) [48, 49]. Utility index values were obtained using “index value set calculators” obtained from https://euroqol.org/ that use valuations of health states in England. We used values from England because some of the health states in our sample were unavailable in the standard EQ-5D-5L value set for Portugal [50].
Near VA values were converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as suggested by others [51, 52]. The reference for near vision ophthalmic utility value was the value of time trade-off utility values for patients with ocular diseases [53].
Economic and Sensitivity Analysis
Economic analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective. All costs are reported in euros for year 2020. EQ-5D-5L index and near vision were measured before the intervention and 12 weeks after to capture the effect of the intervention. To determine whether the intervention was cost-effective the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed using the expression:
From the IMI arm we obtained the “cost intervention”, which is the rehabilitation costs and the “effect intervention”, which is the utility values from EQ-5D-5L and from the near vision ophthalmic utility value at 12 weeks. From the DEI arm we obtained the “cost alternative”, which was zero (because the group was in a waiting list) and the “effect alternative” or “placebo”.
To assess whether the intervention was cost-effective, the threshold used was based on the Portuguese per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of €19,431 for 2020 [54]. To determine confidence intervals we used a procedure implemented in previous studies [55, 56]. In short, we used bootstrapping with 5000 replications for the costs and for the effects in both groups to generate 95% confidence intervals around the ICER estimates. Cost-effectiveness planes were plotted to show the distribution of costs and effects. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to show the probability of cost-effectiveness at a range of thresholds were also plotted. Adjusted intervention cost sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate uncertainty. For that, we computed the ICER for empirical costs values and then computed ICER for extreme cost values.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing were performed according to the type of variable (continuous or discrete) and its distribution (normal or skewed). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to assess normality. Rasch analysis was carried out to analyse results of the AI using the Andrich rate scale model [57] for polytomous data with Winsteps software (v. 4.4.0) to compute person measures of visual ability [58]. The effect of time and group on trial outcomes was tested using linear mixed models (LMM) using PROCMIX in SAS software (R: 3.8, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). For the main outcome measure, visual ability was normalized by subtracting the AI person measure at week 1 from all measures, corresponding to a baseline visual ability of 0 for all participants. For this model visual ability was defined as “dependent variable”; participants were defined as “random factors” or “group specific effects”. Explanatory factors or “fixed factors” were: “arm” and time (1, 12 and 36 for the IMI arm and 1, 12 and 24 for the DEI arm). Similar models were performed for other trial outcomes; only the dependent variable was changed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results
According to the initial protocol, the estimated sample size to detect a significant difference in visual ability measured with the activity inventory at 12 weeks was 22 per arm [38]. A total of 59 patients were invited to participate; of these, 46 agreed to take part in the study. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the 46 participants who accepted to take part in the study are summarized in Table 1.
For the duration of the study, which was mostly conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, there were ten dropouts (21%) related to non-adaptation to the low vision aids, vision improved because of medical treatments or participants failed to show at follow-up assessments. Dropouts were participants that failed to complete the first follow-up after they received the intervention.
The time with the optometrist during the vision rehabilitation intervention was approximately 90 min (questionnaire administration excluded). The reading aids prescribed comprised a total of 17 new pairs of glasses (3 for distance and 14 for near) and 23 LED-illuminated handheld magnifiers. The mean power of the reading aids was 10.0D (SD = 5.0), the median for near glasses was 6D and 12D for the handheld magnifiers.
Main Outcome Measure of the Trial—Visual Ability
The mean visual ability in the IMI (n = 23) before the intervention at baseline or week 1 was 0.28 logits (SD = 1.14), and it increased (n = 21 at 12 weeks) to 0.91 logits (SD = 1.24) after the intervention. In the DEI group (n = 23), the mean visual ability at baseline (week 1) was 0.71 logits (SD = 1.30), and it changed (n = 16 at 12 weeks) to 0.45 logits (SD = 8.88) after the waiting period. A LMM with visual ability as dependent variable revealed a main effect of time, given in weeks (F(3, 69) = 41.16, p < 0.001), and an interaction time × arm (F(1,69) = 6.54, p = 0.012). The effect of arm was not statistically significant (p = 0.059). Comparisons within and between arms are summarized in Table 2; bold p-values correspond to the main results of the trial after 12 weeks, whose values are shown in Fig. 1.
Clinical Changes with Rehabilitation
Descriptive statistics for visual outcomes are given in Table 3. A LMM with VA in the better-seeing eye as dependent variable revealed a statistically significant effect for factor time (F(3,69) = 3.63, p < 0.017); the effects of interaction time × arm (p < 0.54) and factor arm (p = 0.07) were not statistically significant. These results show that distance acuity in the better-seeing eye improved with time for both arms.
LMM for near VA as dependent variable revealed statistically significant effect of main factor time (F(3,69) = 49.77, p < 0.001) and for interaction time × arm (F(1,69) = 82.61, p < 0.001), the effect of arm was not statistically significant (p = 0.45). These results show that near acuity improved with time for both arms but the interaction indicates that the changes were due to the intervention that was delivered at different time points to each arm.
For contrast sensitivity as dependent variable, none of the effects tested with LMM was statistically significant. For critical print size as dependent variable, the main effect time in weeks was statistically significant (F(3,53) = 77.82, p < 0.001). These findings reveal that the intervention failed to improve contrast sensitivity but succeeded at improving critical print size.
Results of the Economic Evaluation
Effectiveness and Costs of the Intervention
The intervention was effective at providing additional QALYs. Using the EQ-5D-5L index value, for the IMI group the median QALY gain of 0.102 (IQR = 0.169) after 12 weeks was statistically significant (Wilcoxon test, Z = − 2.670, p = 0.008). The median QALY change of 0.00 (IQR = 0.287) for the DEI group during the 12 weeks waiting was not statistically significant (p = 0.477). The difference in effect between groups (effect = (EQ-5D-5L index value at 12 weeks) minus (EQ-5D-5L index value at week 1) for each participant) at 12 weeks was statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U test, Z = − 2.007, p = 0.045).
Using near acuity ophthalmic utility values, for the IMI group the mean improvement in QALY of 0.077 (SD = 0.072) after 12 weeks was statistically significant (paired t-test t(20) = − 5.217, p < 0.001.) The mean reduction in QALY of − 0.008 (SD = 0.041) after 12 weeks for the DEI was not statistically significant (p = 0.490). The difference in effect between groups at 12 weeks was statistically significant (independent t-test, t(36) = 4.611, p < 0.001).
The mean cost of the intervention was €118.79 (SD = 24.37), range = €103.12–€199.27. The costs of the intervention included €31.23 for hospital costs for each participant, the mean cost for distances glasses was €84 and the mean cost for near aids (near glasses or LED-illuminate handheld magnifiers) was €80.71 (SD = 7.87).
Cost-Effectiveness Results
Table 4 summarizes the effect and ICER results for the 5000 bootstrap replications. The mean ICER obtained through the EQ-5D-5L index value was 30,421€/QALY and the median was 23,054€/QALY. These values show that the intervention is cost-effective assuming a threshold equal to 2 × the Portuguese per capita GDP, that is, €38,862. The mean ICER obtained through near acuity ophthalmic utility value was 1186€/QALY and the median was 1184€/QALY, which shows that the intervention can be considered cost-effective assuming a threshold equal to one time the Portuguese per capita GDP of €19,431.
Figure 2 shows the cost-effectiveness planes and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. In Fig. 2A the points are spread between an incremental effect on the x-axis of − 0.20 and + 0.20, while on Fig. 2B all the points show an incremental effect on the x-axis above 0. The northeast quadrant is where the intervention is more costly but more effective and the north-west quadrant is where the intervention is more costly but less effective. Figure 2C shows that the probability of the intervention to be cost-effective is 49% for a threshold of ~ €20,000 (Portugal per capita GDP) and Fig. 2D shows that the probability of the intervention to be cost-effective is 100% from a threshold of €2400. Table 5 summarizes the sensitivity analysis based on different cost scenarios; the intervention remains cost-effective in all cost scenarios.
Discussion
In the current study we investigated the effect of a basic vision rehabilitation intervention and its cost-effectiveness. The study took place in a public hospital and was focused on a single interaction with an optometrist providing updated refractive correction, reading aids, basic training with the aid and instructions to reduce the effect of low vision in activities of daily living. The ability to perform activities that rely on vision—visual ability—was the main outcome measure and was assessed with the AI. As hypothesized, a basic vision rehabilitation intervention resulted in a significant improvement in visual ability. These results are in line with previous studies conducted in other countries [4, 18, 21, 55, 59,60,61]. In addition, there was an improvement in health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-5L, which is also in line with other studies [37, 60, 61]. The current basic vision rehabilitation intervention was cost-effective, which is in line with studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of other types of rehabilitation interventions for people with VI [55, 56, 62,63,64].
Clinical Impact of Rehabilitation
The improvement observed in our participants’ visual ability suggests that they experienced fewer difficulties performing activities of daily living, which provides evidence of the benefits of vision rehabilitation for people with vision impairment [4, 5, 59]. The difference between the current study and previous studies is that others tended to included comprehensive rehabilitation with different professionals (e.g., occupational therapist, social worker) and multiple interactions with the patients to improve aspects such as mobility or at home training [4, 5, 59, 65, 66]. Therefore, the current study gives fresh evidence that a simple but structured intervention produces measurable improvements in everyday functioning for people with VI.
Improvements in visual ability can be explained by an overall improvement in vision function and, eventually, an optimization of the remaining vision. The improvement in acuity at distance (overall approximately 2 letters) can be considered modest but reasonable if we consider that with some treatments such as anti-VEGF injections the improvement in distance VA is in the range 1–5 letters [67, 68]. Most of our participants were unable to read common print sizes, such as personal mail, before rehabilitation. In line with the initial expectations, the intervention caused significant improvements in near VA and critical print size, which reduced the reading difficulties reported in the AI [18, 21, 37, 69,70,71]. In short, changes in visual ability detected after the basic vision rehabilitation intervention can be explained by improvements in near vision tasks achieved with the correct use of the prescribed magnification.
Cost-Effectiveness—Discussion of the Economical Evaluation
The cost of the basic vision rehabilitation intervention was lower than the costs reported by other studies [33]. These results can be explained by the normal differences in costs of the healthcare workforce and products in different countries. Bray et al. found that interventions for near vision activities tend to be cost-effective independently of the type of magnifiers [55]. Our findings are in line with these results.
ICER calculations for different utilities in Table 4 and cost scenarios in Table 5 revealed that our intervention was always cost-effective assuming a threshold equal to two times the Portuguese per capita GDP. The World Health Organisation’s Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested that cost-effectiveness thresholds should be three times the per capita GDP [72], which gives a cost–effectiveness threshold of €58,293. However, when using the EQ-5D-5L index we found that the probability of the intervention to be cost-effective was roughly 49% (for a threshold equal to the Portuguese per capita GDP) and 52% (for a threshold equal to two times the Portuguese per capita GDP)—which indicates uncertainty around these estimates (Fig. 2A). Based on the near vision ophthalmic utility value, the intervention was more cost-effective than with the EQ-5D-5L index value and there was less uncertainty around the estimates (Fig. 2B). This may be related to the fact that the near acuity-based ophthalmic utility value captures the actual near vision improvements. The EQ-5D-5L index has been considered to have low responsiveness to the effects of vision rehabilitation; therefore, our results for the cost-effectiveness have limitations [38, 73]. The fact that we used the EQ-5D-5L, an instrument with limited responsiveness to vision rehabilitation, is a limitation to the results of the current trial [74].
A literature review concluded that most ophthalmologic interventions are cost-effective and the median cost-utility value is 5 219$/QALY (~ 4571€/QALY) [75]. Recent findings in vision rehabilitation services in England found that for values between £13,000 (~ €15,423) and £30,000 (~ €35,591) per QALY, in-house VR had a high probability of being cost-effective from a social care perspective. However, the probability of being cost-effective was lower when a healthcare perspective was used [62]. Assuming a healthcare perspective, which is expected to capture only part of the benefits of vision rehabilitation, the basic intervention performed as part of the current study can be considered cost-effective as shown by the different costs and utility scenarios investigated.
We consider that the COVID-19 pandemic was a significant barrier for recruiting and retaining participants in this study, which led to its first limitation—the n was less than expected and can be considered small. The small sample affected particularly the cost-effectiveness analysis where results for QALY gains and losses for the groups were very “noisy”—this limits the strength of the findings. Another limitation was the fact that the research person collecting the data (author LHM) was not “blinded” for the allocation of the participants. That might have caused bias during data collection; however, the researcher was always aware of this fact and did everything possible to control any bias. These limitations should be addressed in future studies. A further issue that can be hard to address in studies like the current one is the fact that patients at need of VR also need medical care during rehabilitation. We discussed with the ophthalmologists responsible for the patients’ treatments what they expected in terms of visual prognosis during the temporal frame of the study for each of the participants. None was expected to improve visual function. However, treatments to prevent vision loss such as intravitreal injections were given, if necessary, during patients’ participation in the current study. For example, one of the dropouts was submitted to a vitrectomy that improved visual acuity significantly. Acuity of most participants remained stable during the time that they were in the study, as shown by the vision outcomes given in Table 3.
Conclusion
Results of the current study show that a basic vision rehabilitation intervention was clinically impactful and cost-effective. A single patient-optometrist interaction led to immediate meaningful improvements for the patient that were retained over time. These findings are important to clinical and rehabilitation practices and for planning vision rehabilitation services. We hope that results of the current study provide the necessary basis for the development of VR services in Portugal that follow at least the minimum standards established by WHO Package of Eye Care Interventions.
References
WHO. World Report on Vision. World Health Organization. 2019.
Burton MJ, Ramke J, Marques AP, Bourne RRA, Congdon N, Jones I, et al. The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: vision beyond 2020. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(4):e489–551 (Epub 20210216).
Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22 (Epub 20170822).
Pearce E, Crossland MD, Rubin GS. The efficacy of low vision device training in a hospital-based low vision clinic. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(1):105–8 (Epub 2010/09/15).
Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Wei Y, Wilcox DT, Morand T, Brahm K, et al. Outcomes of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial II (LOVIT II): A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(2):96–104 (Epub 2016/12/16).
Rees G, Xie J, Chiang PP, Larizza MF, Marella M, Hassell JB, et al. A randomised controlled trial of a self-management programme for low vision implemented in low vision rehabilitation services. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(2):174–81 (Epub 2014/12/08).
Marques AP, Macedo AF, Hernandez-Moreno L, Ramos PL, Butt T, Rubin GS, et al. The use of informal care by people with vision impairment. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(6): e0198631.
Marques AP, Macedo AF, Lima Ramos P, Moreno LH, Butt T, Rubin G, et al. Productivity losses and their explanatory factors amongst people with impaired vision. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2019.1632904.
Hernandez-Moreno L, Senra H, Moreno N, Macedo AF. Is perceived social support more important than visual acuity for clinical depression and anxiety in patients with age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy? Clin Rehabil. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215521997991 (Epub 2021/03/05).
Rabiee P, Bernard S, Baxter K, Parker G. Community-based vision rehabilitation provision in England. Br J Vis Impair. 2016;34(3):248–61.
Taylor HR, Pezzullo ML, Keeffe JE. The economic impact and cost of visual impairment in Australia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):272–5 (Epub 2006/02/21).
Cruess AF, Gordon KD, Bellan L, Mitchell S, Pezzullo ML. The cost of vision loss in Canada. 2. Results. Can J Ophthalmol. 2011;46(4):315–8 (Epub 2011/08/06).
Wittenborn JS, Zhang XZ, Feagan CW, Crouse WL, Shrestha S, Kemper AR, et al. The economic burden of vision loss and eye disorders among the United States population younger than 40 years. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(9):1728–35.
Marques AP, Ramke J, Cairns J, Butt T, Zhang JH, Muirhead D, et al. Global economic productivity losses from vision impairment and blindness. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;35: 100852 (Epub 20210426).
Coyne KS, Margolis MK, Kennedy-Martin T, Baker TM, Klein R, Paul MD, et al. The impact of diabetic retinopathy: perspectives from patient focus groups. Fam Pract. 2004;21(4):447–53.
Langelaan M, de Boer MR, van Nispen RMA, Wouters B, Moll AC, van Rens GHMB. Impact of visual impairment on quality of life: a comparison with quality of life in the general population and with other chronic conditions. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007;14(3):119–26.
Brown JC, Goldstein JE, Chan TL, Massof R, Ramulu P, Grp LVRNS. Characterizing functional complaints in patients seeking outpatient low vision services in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.02.030.
Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Reda DJ, Rinne S, Mancil RM, Massof RW, et al. Outcomes of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT). Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(5):608–17 (Epub 2008/05/14).
WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, 2001. Geneva. World Health Organization. 2001.
Massof RW, Ahmadian L, Grover LL, Deremeik JT, Goldstein JE, Rainey C, et al. The activity inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire. Optometry Vision Sci. 2007;84(8):763–74.
Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Wei Y, Massof RW, low vision Intervention Trial Study G. The effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation in 2 cohorts derived from the veterans affairs low vision Intervention Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(9):1162–8 (Epub 2012/09/12).
Stronks HC, Mitchell EB, Nau AC, Barnes N. Visual task performance in the blind with the BrainPort V100 Vision Aid. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13(10):919–31 (Epub 2016/09/17).
Crossland MD, Silva RS, Macedo AF. Smartphone, tablet computer and e-reader use by people with vision impairment. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(5):552–7 (Epub 2014/07/30).
Smith TM, Hong I, Reistetter TA. Responsiveness of the revised low vision independence measure (LVIM-R). Am J Occup Ther. 2020;74(5):7405205040p1-p11 (Epub 2020/08/18).
Malkin AG, Goldstein JE, Massof RW. Multivariable Regression Model of the EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire in Patients Seeking Outpatient Low Vision Rehabilitation. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2017;24(3):174–80 (Epub 2017/01/04).
Ramos PL, Santana R, Moreno LH, Marques AP, Freitas C, Rocha-Sousa A, et al. Predicting participation of people with impaired vision in epidemiological studies. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18(1):236.
Hernández-Moreno L, Moreno Perdomo N, Lima Ramos P, Lewis P, Linhares J, Senra H, et al. Visual and psychological outcomes in patients with and without low vision diagnosed with similar eye diseases—initial results. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 2018;59(9):3411.
Senra H, Macedo A, Nunes N, Balaskas K, Aslam T, Costa E. Psychological and psychosocial interventions for depression and anxiety in patients with age-related macular degeneration–a systematic review. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;27(8):755–73.
Ramos PL, Santana R, Marques AP, Sousa I, Rocha-Sousa A, Macedo AF. Cross-sectional study investigating the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in Northwest Portugal using capture–recapture. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9): e056995.
Cachulo Mda L, Laíns I, Lobo C, Figueira J, Ribeiro L, Marques JP, et al. Age-related macular degeneration in Portugal: prevalence and risk factors in a coastal and an inland town. The Coimbra Eye Study—Report 2. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(6):e442–53 (Epub 20160125).
Dutra Medeiros M, Mesquita E, Papoila AL, Genro V, Raposo JF. First diabetic retinopathy prevalence study in Portugal: RETINODIAB Study–evaluation of the screening programme for Lisbon and Tagus Valley region. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(10):1328–33 (Epub 20150402).
Stelmack JA, Tang XYC, Reda DJ, Stroupe KT, Rinne S, Massof RW, et al. VA LOVIT II: a protocol to compare low vision rehabilitation and basic low vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012;32(6):461–71.
Stroupe KT, Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Wei YL, Sayers S, Reda DJ, et al. Economic evaluation of low vision rehabilitation for veterans with macular diseases in the US department of veterans affairs. Jama Ophthalmol. 2018;136(5):524–31.
Lam N, Leat SJ. Barriers to accessing low vision care: the patient’s perspective. Can J Ophthalm. 2013;48(6):458–62.
O’Connor PM, Mu LC, Keeffe JE. Access and utilization of a new low vision rehabilitation service. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;36(6):547–52.
Crossland MD, Silver JH. Thirty years in an urban low vision clinic: changes in prescribing habits of low vision practitioners. Optometry Vision Sci. 2005;82(7):617–22.
Binns AM, Bunce C, Dickinson C, Harper R, Tudor-Edwards R, Woodhouse M, Linck P, et al. How effective is low vision service provision? A systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2012;57(1):34–65 (Epub 2011/10/25).
Hernandez-Moreno L, Senra H, Lewis P, Moreno N, Linhares J, Santana R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of basic vision rehabilitation (The basic VRS-effect study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12665 (Epub 2020/01/29).
WHO TEAM for Sensory Functions Disability and Rehabilitation. The package of eye care interventions Organization WH, editor2022.
Hernandez-Moreno L, Massof RW, Sousa S, Cima J, Costa JPM, Monteiro J, et al. The Portuguese version of the activity inventory. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 2015;56(7):1368.
Macedo AF, Ramos PL, Hernandez-Moreno L, Cima J, Baptista AMG, Marques AP, et al. Visual and health outcomes, measured with the activity inventory and the EQ-5D, in visual impairment. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(8):e783–91 (Epub 2017/04/04).
Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH, Barnett GD, Park WL, Deremeik JT, et al. Visual disability variables. I: the importance and difficulty of activity goals for a sample of low vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(5):946–53.
Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH, Barnett GD, Park WL, Deremeik JT, et al. Visual disability variables. II: The difficulty of tasks for a sample of low vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(5):954–67.
Ferris FL, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New Visual-acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94(1):91–6.
Legge GE, Ross JA, Luebker A, Lamay JM. Psychophysics of reading. VIII. The Minnesota low vision Reading Test. Optometry Vision Sci. 1989;66(12):843–53.
Castro CT, Kallie CS, Salomao SR. Development and validation of the MNREAD reading acuity chart in Portuguese. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2005;68(6):777–83 (Epub 2007/03/09. Elaboracao e validacao de tabela MNREAD para o idioma portugues).
Baskaran K, Macedo AF, He Y, Hernandez-Moreno L, Queirós T, Mansfield JS, et al. Scoring reading parameters: an inter-rater reliability study using the MNREAD chart. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0216775-e.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.
Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, de Charro F. A Program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53.
Ferreira PL, Antunes P, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN, Ramos-Goñi JM. A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(12):3163–75 (Epub 20190614).
Ross EL, Hutton DW, Stein JD, Bressler NM, Jampol LM, Glassman AR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema Treatment: Analysis From the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(8):888–96 (Epub 2016/06/10).
Brown GC. Vision and quality-of-life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1999;97:473.
Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Landy J. Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003;48(2):204–23 (Epub 2003/04/11).
INE. Produto interno bruto por habitante a preços correntes por localização geográfica. Instituto Nacional de Estatística 2020 [updated 14 December 202117 February 2022]; Available from: https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_indicadores&contecto=pi&indOcorrCod=0009975&selTab=tab0.
Bray N, Brand A, Taylor J, Hoare Z, Dickinson C, Edwards RT. Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(5):e415–23.
Patty NJS, Koopmanschap M, Holtzer-Goor K. A cost-effectiveness study of ICT training among the visually impaired in the Netherlands. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18(1):98 (Epub 2018/04/19).
David A. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43(4):561–73.
Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal—measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70(12):857–60.
Goldstein JE, Jackson ML, Fox SM, Deremeik JT, Massof RW, Low Vision Research Network Study G. Clinically meaningful rehabilitation outcomes of low vision patients served by outpatient clinical centers. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(7):762–9 (Epub 2015/04/10).
Do AT, Ilango K, Ramasamy D, Kalidasan S, Balakrishnan V, Chang RT. Effectiveness of low vision services in improving patient quality of life at Aravind Eye Hospital. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014;62(12):1125–31.
Kaltenegger K, Kuester S, Altpeter-Ott E, Eschweiler GW, Cordey A, Ivanov IV, et al. Effects of home reading training on reading and quality of life in AMD-a randomized and controlled study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;257(7):1499–512 (Epub 2019/05/22).
Longo F, Saramago P, Weatherly H, Rabiee P, Birks Y, Keding A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of in-house versus contracted-out vision rehabilitation services in England. Journal of Long-term Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.26.
Taylor J, Bambrick R, Dutton M, Harper R, Ryan B, Tudor-Edwards R, et al. The p-EVES study design and methodology: a randomised controlled trial to compare portable electronic vision enhancement systems (p-EVES) to optical magnifiers for near vision activities in visual impairment. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(5):558–72 (Epub 2014/08/15).
van der Aa HPA, van Rens G, Bosmans JE, Comijs HC, van Nispen RMA. Economic evaluation of stepped-care versus usual care for depression and anxiety in older adults with vision impairment: randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):280 (Epub 2017/08/03).
Lamoureux EL, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, Rees G, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. The effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation on participation in daily living and quality of life. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(4):1476–82 (Epub 2007/03/29).
Silva MBR, Cavalieri GC, Cota LS, Frare EZ, Hoyama E, Matsuo T, et al. Quality of life of patients attending a low vision rehabilitation service in Brazil. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 2018;59(9):1066.
Wykoff CC, Brown DM, Chen E, Major JC, Croft DE, Mariani A, et al. SAVE (Super-dose anti-VEGF) trial: 2.0 mg ranibizumab for recalcitrant neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year results. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2013;44(2):121–6 (Epub 2013/03/21).
Wallsh JO, Gallemore RP. Anti-VEGF-resistant retinal diseases: a review of the latest treatment options. Cells. 2021;10(5):1049.
van Nispen RM, Knol DL, Langelaan M, de Boer MR, Terwee CB, van Rens GH. Applying multilevel item response theory to vision-related quality of life in Dutch visually impaired elderly. Optometry Vision Sci. 2007;84(8):710–20 (Epub 2007/08/19).
Margrain TH. Helping blind and partially sighted people to read: the effectiveness of low vision aids. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84(8):919–21 (Epub 2000/07/25).
Hinds A, Sinclair A, Park J, Suttie A, Paterson H, Macdonald M. Impact of an interdisciplinary low vision service on the quality of life of low vision patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(11):1391–6 (Epub 2003/11/12).
Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(1):1–31.
Malkin AG, Goldstein JE, Perlmutter MS, Massof RW. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to the effects of low vision rehabilitation. Optometry Vision Sci. 2013;90(8):799–805.
Macedo AF, Hellström A, Massof R, Tuvesson H, Rask M, Ramos PL, et al. Predictors of problems reported on the EQ-5D-3L dimensions among people with impaired vision in northern Portugal. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022;20(1):132 (Epub 20220906).
Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Brown H, Smithen L, Leeser DB, et al. Value-based medicine and ophthalmology: an appraisal of cost-utility analyses. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2004;102:177–85 (discussion 85-8. Epub 2005/03/08).
Acknowledgements
We thank the participants of the study. The current study is part of a clinical trial with registration number: ISRCTN10894889, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10894889. We thank the hospital where the study took place for making space available. We also acknowledge staff from the Department of Ophthalmology, including all ophthalmologists, for their collaboration in the recruitment process. We also acknowledge Dr. João Linhares, Prof. Rui Santana and Dr. Pedro Lima Ramos for their support during this project.
Funding
Purchase of ophthalmic lenses and some of the magnifiers was supported by Essilor Portugal and Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia grants: PTDC/DPT-EPI/0412/2012, UID/FIS/04650/2013/ and SFRH/BD/119420/2016. AFM and the journal’s Rapid Service Fee were funded by the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at Linnaeus University. These funding sources had no role in the design, execution, analyses, interpretation of the data or decision to submit results.
Author Contributions
Conception of the work: AFM, LHM, HS, APM, NMP. Design of the work: AFM, LHM, HS, APM. Acquisition, analysis of data: AFM, LHM, HS, APM. Interpretation of data: AFM, LHM, HS, APM. Creation of software: AFM. Drafted the work: AFM, LHM. Revised the work: AFM, LHM, HS, APM, NMP. Approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study): All authors.
Disclosures
Laura Hernández-Moreno, Hugo Senra, Ana Patricia Marques, Natacha Moreno Perdomo and Antonio Filipe Macedo have nothing to disclose.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Life Sciences and Health of the University of Minho (SECVS 147/2016) and by the Hospital Santa Maria Maior’s ethics committee. Portuguese data protection authority approval number: 7012/2017. Patients gave written informed consent for participation in this study. The study conformed to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hernández-Moreno, L., Senra, H., Marques, A.P. et al. The Basic VRS-Effect Study: Clinical Trial Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Low Vision Rehabilitation in Portugal. Ophthalmol Ther 12, 307–323 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-022-00600-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-022-00600-0