Effects and feasibility of a standardised orientation and mobility training in using an identification cane for older adults with low vision: design of a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Orientation and mobility training (O&M-training) in using an identification cane, also called symbol cane, is provided to people with low vision to facilitate independent participation in the community. In The Netherlands this training is mainly practice-based because a standardised and validly evaluated O&M-training in using the identification cane is lacking. Recently a standardised O&M-training in using the identification cane was developed. This training consists of two face-to-face sessions and one telephone session during which, in addition to usual care, the client's needs regarding mobility are prioritised, and cognitive restructuring techniques, action planning and contracting are applied to facilitate the use of the cane. This paper presents the design of a randomised controlled trial aimed to evaluate this standardised O&M-training in using the identification cane in older adults with low vision.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>A parallel group randomised controlled trial was designed to compare the standardised O&M-training with usual care, i.e. the O&M-training commonly provided by the mobility trainer. Community-dwelling older people who ask for support at a rehabilitation centre for people with visual impairment and who are likely to receive an O&M-training in using the identification cane are included in the trial (N = 190). The primary outcomes of the effect evaluation are ADL self care and visual functioning with respect to distance activities and mobility. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, feelings of anxiety, symptoms of depression, fear of falling, and falls history. Data for the effect evaluation are collected by means of telephone interviews at baseline, and at 5 and 17 weeks after the start of the O&M-training. In addition to an effect evaluation, a process evaluation to study the feasibility of the O&M-training is carried out.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The screening procedure for eligible participants started in November 2007 and will continue until October 2009. Preliminary findings regarding the evaluation are expected in the course of 2010. If the standardised O&M-training is more effective than the current O&M-training or, in case of equal effectiveness, is considered more feasible, the training will be embedded in the Dutch national instruction for mobility trainers.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00946062</p

Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials: Recommendations from the International HOVER Taskforce

Translational research in vision prosthetics, gene therapy, optogenetics, stem cell and other forms of transplantation, and sensory substitution is creating new therapeutic options for patients with neural forms of blindness. The technical challenges faced by each of these disciplines differ considerably, but they all face the same challenge of how to assess vision in patients with ultra-low vision (ULV), who will be the earliest subjects to receive new therapies. Historically, there were few tests to assess vision in ULV patients. In the 1990s, the field of visual prosthetics expanded rapidly, and this activity led to a heightened need to develop better tests to quantify end points for clinical studies. Each group tended to develop novel tests, which made it difficult to compare outcomes across groups. The common lack of validation of the tests and the variable use of controls added to the challenge of interpreting the outcomes of these clinical studies. In 2014, at the bi-annual International "Eye and the Chip" meeting of experts in the field of visual prosthetics, a group of interested leaders agreed to work cooperatively to develop the International Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials (HOVER) Taskforce. Under this banner, more than 80 specialists across seven topic areas joined an effort to formulate guidelines for performing and reporting psychophysical tests in humans who participate in clinical trials for visual restoration. This document provides the complete version of the consensus opinions from the HOVER taskforce, which, together with its rules of governance, will be posted on the website of the Henry Ford Department of Ophthalmology (www.artificialvision.org). Research groups or companies that choose to follow these guidelines are encouraged to include a specific statement to that effect in their communications to the public. The Executive Committee of the HOVER Taskforce will maintain a list of all human psychophysical research in the relevant fields of research on the same website to provide an overview of methods and outcomes of all clinical work being performed in an attempt to restore vision to the blind. This website will also specify which scientific publications contain the statement of certification. The website will be updated every 2 years and continue to exist as a living document of worldwide efforts to restore vision to the blind. The HOVER consensus document has been written by over 80 of the world's experts in vision restoration and low vision and provides recommendations on the measurement and reporting of patient outcomes in vision restoration trials

Compensatory viewing training improves practical fitness to drive of subjects with impaired vision

In many countries strict legal requirements for obtaining a driver’s license are in effect for visual acuity and visual field.We studied the relationship between these characteristics and driving safety and driving proficiency in an on-the-road test of practical fitness to drive in subjects with visual disorders, including many subjects scoring below current criteria. We further studied how far the relationship between the on-the-road test and visual measures improved if compensatory eye movements and visual attention were included in the criteria. Lastly, we studied the effects of training compensatory viewing strategiesformed the on-the-road test before and after training. Training consisted of laboratory and mobility training, including driving instruction. Visual function assessment included acuity, visual field, contrast sensitivity, visual attention, compensatory viewing efficiency, and visuospatial tests. In one study an advanced driving simulator was used besides the on-the-road assessment. Two models were compared to predict the on-the-road score. Results: 13–62% of the subjects passed the on-the-road test before training. After training, an additional 15–45% passed. The power of both models to predict the on-the-road score rose to about 45% by adding viewing behavior in the driving simulator. Discussion: A considerable percentage of the subjects, legally not allowed to drive, passed the on-the-road test. Sensitivity and specificity of vision tests and driving simulator tests are still too low to decide upon unfitness to drive. Training of compensatory viewing improved the performance in the on-the-road test.