| Methods |
Quote: “Clinicians frequently prescribe reading devices for low vision patients having a central field loss, however there is an absence of critical types of information upon which to base this decision. In particular, there is a lack of information relating to the reading speed and duration to be expected from different types of low vision devices. PURPOSE. This study sought to provide comparative information for clinicians to use to assist clinicians in prescribing and patients in selecting the most cost-effective device. METHOD. The study compared optical aids with two types of CCTVs that differ in two important characteristics: price and whether the camera was stand mounted with an X-Y table or whether the camera was manually scanned. A within subjects design was chosen and we used measures of reading speed and duration as the performance measures. The 22 central field loss subjects indicated their preferences in response to seven forced choice or open-ended questions.” |
| Participants |
22 central field loss participants |
| Interventions |
optical aids and 2 types of CCTVs |
| Outcomes |
Quote: “Subject reading speed and duration were significantly greater with the CCTV systems than with optical aids, however no significant differences were found between the two types of CCTVs. Patients expressed clear preference for one versus the other type of CCTV, with over-all preference for the standmounted system. When considering the price differential between types of CCTVs patient preferences were equally divided. CONCLUSIONS. Clinicians can expect significant reading performance differences between optical aids and CCTVs. Patients, given the opportunity to choose, will factor features, performance, and price information into the selection of low vision reading device(s).” |
| Notes |
|
