Barriers in utilisation of low vision assistive products.
Journal
Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
04
10
2018
accepted:
26
07
2019
revised:
16
07
2019
pubmed:
8
8
2019
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
8
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To understand the barriers in utilisation of low vision assistive products (LVAPs) from the perspective of patients with low vision. Patients referred to low vision clinic in a tertiary eye care hospital in India who were prescribed LVAPs but were un-willing to accept the products were interviewed using questionnaires. Data pertaining to the age, diagnosis, gender, occupation, preferred LVAPs, patient's perception of vision loss and the primary reason for non-acceptance of LVAPs were analysed. A total of 235 among the 413 patients who noticed improvement in visual performance with LVAPs were unwilling to utilise these products. The questionnaire revealed that 53% of the patients who felt they were not candidates for LVAPs were experiencing severe visual impairment (p < 0.02). Non-acceptance was highest (68.6%) in patients < 15 years of age. The most common causes of non-acceptance were social stigma in patients < 40 years (41.3%; p < 0.0001), fear of loss of employment in patients 41-60 years (26.6%; p < 0.01) and low necessity in patients > 60 years (25%; p < 0.001). Denial of the magnitude of their illness was more common in patients above 60 years (16.5%). Non-acceptance rate was lowest for macular disorders (39.6%) and highest for retinitis pigmentosa (81%). Among devices, hand and stand magnifiers had the lowest non-acceptance rate (41%). Telescopes and electronic devices had the highest rate of non-acceptance (92% and 89%, respectively). Reasons for poor utilisation of LVAPs are multifactorial extending beyond affordability or accessibility. Knowledge of these barriers can help in creating content for awareness campaigns among patients, healthcare professionals and general society. Further research is necessary on the psychological and psycho social contributors to this process.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31388131
doi: 10.1038/s41433-019-0545-5
pii: 10.1038/s41433-019-0545-5
pmc: PMC7002618
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
344-351Références
Bourne RRA, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, Cicinelli MV, Das A, Jonas JB, et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5:e888–97.
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30293-0
Chia E-M, Mitchell P, Ojaimi E, Rochtchina E, Wang JJ. Assessment of vision-related quality of life in an older population subsample: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2006;13:371–7.
doi: 10.1080/09286580600864794
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;14:119–26.
doi: 10.1080/09286580601139212
Lord SR. Visual risk factors for falls in older people. Age Ageing. 2006;35:ii42–ii45.
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afl085
Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Hannan MT, Milton RC, Wilson PW, Kiel DP. Impaired vision and hip fracture. The Framingham Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1989;37:495–500.
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1989.tb05678.x
Kempen GIJM, Ballemans J, Ranchor AV, van Rens GHMB, Zijlstra GAR. The impact of low vision on activities of daily living, symptoms of depression, feelings of anxiety and social support in community-living older adults seeking vision rehabilitation services. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:1405–11.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0061-y
Köberlein J, Beifus K, Schaffert C, Finger RP. The economic burden of visual impairment and blindness: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003471.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003471
Chiang PP-C, O’Connor PM, Le Mesurier RT, Keeffe JE. A global survey of low vision service provision. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2011;18:109–21.
doi: 10.3109/09286586.2011.560745
National Eye Institute. Low Vision Focus Groups Final Report: ophthalmologists, optometrists, and office staff. 2001. http://www.nei.nih.gov/nehep/pro_focus.htm . Accessed 3 Mar 2002.
Keeffe JE, Lovie-Kitchin JE, Taylor HR. Referral to low vision services by ophthalmologists. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1996;24:207–14.
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.1996.tb01582.x
Wong TY, Zheng Y, Jonas JB, Flaxman SR, Keeffe J, Leasher J, et al. Prevalence and causes of vision loss in East Asia: 1990–2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:599–604.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304047
Pollard TL, Simpson JA, Lamoureux EL, Keeffe JE. Barriers to accessing low vision services. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003;23:321–7.
doi: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.2003.00123.x
O’Day BL, Killeen M, Iezzoni LI. Improving health care experiences of persons who are blind or have low vision: suggestions from focus groups. Am J Med Qual. 2004;19:193–200.
doi: 10.1177/106286060401900503
Overbury O, Wittich W. Barriers to low vision rehabilitation: the Montreal Barriers Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:8933–8.
doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8116
Major B, O’Brien LT. The social psychology of stigma. Annu Rev Psychol. 2005;56:393–421.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137
Walter C, Althouse R, Humble H, Leys M, Odom J. West Virginia survey of visual health: low vision and barriers to access. Vis Impair Res. 2004;6:53–71.
doi: 10.1080/13882350390487018
van Dijk K. Definition: visual impairment. In: Punani B, Rawal N, editors. Visual impairment and blindness. Chap. 1, vol. 1. Vastrapur, Ahmedabad: Blind People’s Association; 2000. p. 1–10.