Low vision rehabilitation for better quality of life in visually impaired adults.
Ruth MA van Nispen,Gianni Virgili,Mirke Hoeben,Maaike Langelaan,Jeroen Klevering,Jan EE Keunen,Ger HMB van Rens
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006543.pub2
IF: 8.4
2020-01-28
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Low vision rehabilitation aims to optimise the use of residual vision after severe vision loss, but also aims to teach skills in order to improve visual functioning in daily life. Other aims include helping people to adapt to permanent vision loss and improving psychosocial functioning. These skills promote independence and active participation in society. Low vision rehabilitation should ultimately improve quality of life (QOL) for people who have visual impairment. To assess the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation interventions on health‐related QOL (HRQOL), vision‐related QOL (VRQOL) or visual functioning and other closely related patient‐reported outcomes in visually impaired adults. We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers up to 18 September 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating HRQOL, VRQOL and related outcomes of adults, with an irreversible visual impairment (World Health Organization criteria). We included studies that compared rehabilitation interventions with active or inactive control. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 44 studies (73 reports) conducted in North America, Australia, Europe and Asia. Considering the clinical diversity of low vision rehabilitation interventions, the studies were categorised into four groups of related intervention types (and by comparator): (1) psychological therapies and/or group programmes, (2) methods of enhancing vision, (3) multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes, (4) other programmes. Comparators were no care or waiting list as an inactive control group, usual care or other active control group. Participants included in the reported studies were mainly older adults with visual impairment or blindness, often as a result of age‐related macular degeneration (AMD). Study settings were often hospitals or low vision rehabilitation services. Effects were measured at the short‐term (six months or less) in most studies. Not all studies reported on funding, but those who did were supported by public or non‐profit funders (N = 31), except for two studies. Compared to inactive comparators, we found very low‐certainty evidence of no beneficial effects on HRQOL that was imprecisely estimated for psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD 0.26, 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.80; participants = 183; studies = 1) and an imprecise estimate suggesting little or no effect of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD ‐0.08, 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.21; participants = 183; studies = 2; I 2 = 0%); no data were available for methods of enhancing vision or other programmes. Regarding VRQOL, we found low‐ or very low‐certainty evidence of imprecisely estimated benefit with psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD ‐0.23, 95% CI ‐0.53 to 0.08; studies = 2; I 2 = 24%) and methods of enhancing vision (SMD ‐0.19, 95% CI ‐0.54 to 0.15; participants = 262; studies = 5; I 2 = 34%). Two studies using multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes showed beneficial but inconsistent results, of which one study, which was at low risk of bias and used intensive rehabilitation, recorded a very large and significant effect (SMD: ‐1.64, 95% CI ‐2.05 to ‐1.24), and the other a small and uncertain effect (SMD ‐0.42, 95%: ‐0.90 to 0.07). Compared to active comparators, we found very low‐certainty evidence of small or no beneficial effects on HRQOL that were imprecisely estimated with psychological therapies and/or group programmes including no difference (SMD ‐0.09, 95% CI ‐0.39 to 0.20; participants = 600; studies = 4; I 2 = 67%). We also found very low‐certainty evidence of small or no beneficial effects with methods of enhancing vision, that were imprecisely estimated (SMD ‐0.09, 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.09; participants = 443; studies = 2; I 2 = 0%) and multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD ‐0.10, 95% CI ‐0.31 to 0.12; participants = 375; studies = 2; I 2 = 0%). Concerning VRQOL, low‐certainty evidence of small or no beneficial effects that were imprecisely estimated, was found with psychological therapies and/or group programmes (SMD ‐0.11, 95% CI ‐0.24 to 0.01; participants = 1245; studies = 7; I 2 = 19%) and moderate‐certainty evidence of small effects with methods of enhancing vision (SMD ‐0.24, 95% CI ‐0.40 to ‐0.08; participants = 660; studies = 7; I 2 = 16%). No additional benefit was found with multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (SMD 0.01, 95% CI ‐0.18 to 0.20; participants = 464; studies = 3; I 2 = 0%; low‐certainty evidence). Among secondary outcomes, very low‐certainty evidence of a significant and large, but imprecisely estimated benefit on self‐efficacy or self‐esteem was found for psychological therapies and/or group programmes versus waiting list or no care (SMD ‐0.85, -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal