Acceptability of Telerehabilitation for Magnification Devices for the Visually Impaired Using Various Approaches to Facilitate Accessibility

Ava K Bittner, Patrick D Yoshinaga, John D Shepherd, John E Kaminski, Alexis G Malkin, Melissa W Chun, Tiffany L Chan, Ashley D Deemer, Nicole C Ross, BeST-AID Study Team, Ava K Bittner, Patrick D Yoshinaga, John D Shepherd, John E Kaminski, Alexis G Malkin, Melissa W Chun, Tiffany L Chan, Ashley D Deemer, Nicole C Ross, BeST-AID Study Team

Abstract

Purpose: We examined different methods to reduce the burden of accessing technology for videoconferencing during telerehabilitation for magnification devices for the visually impaired.

Methods: During telerehabilitation studies over the past 5 years, vision rehabilitation providers assessed and gave training to visually impaired participants with newly dispensed magnification devices at home who connected to Zoom videoconferencing via loaner tablets or smartphones with assistance from (phase 1; n = 10) investigators by phone, (phase 2; n = 11) local Lions Club volunteers in participants' homes, or (phase 3; n = 24) remote access control software in a randomized controlled trial with 13 usual care controls who received in-office training. All participants completed the same post-telerehabilitation phone survey.

Results: A significantly greater proportion of phase 3 subjects indicated they strongly or mostly agreed that the technology did not interfere with the session (96%) compared to phase 1 (60%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-12.5; P = 0.03) or phase 2 (55%; 95% CI, 1.8-188; P = 0.01). The majority indicated telerehabilitation was as accurate as in person (68%), they were comfortable with telerehabilitation (91%) and interested in a future session (83%), and their magnifier use improved (79%), with no significant differences in these responses between phases (all P > 0.10), including comparisons of participants randomized to telerehabilitation or in-office training in phase 3 who reported similar overall satisfaction levels (P = 0.84).

Conclusions: Participants across all phases reported high levels of acceptance for telerehabilitation, with least interference from technology using remote access control in phase 3.

Translational relevance: With accommodations for accessibility to videoconferencing technology, telerehabilitation for magnification devices can be a feasible, acceptable, and valuable option in countries with resources to support the technology.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: A.K. Bittner, None; P.D. Yoshinaga, None; J.D. Shepherd, None; J.E. Kaminski, None; A.G. Malkin, None; M.W. Chun, None; T.L. Chan, None; A.D. Deemer, None; N.C. Ross, None

Figures

Figure.
Figure.
Bar graph displaying the proportion of participants whose survey responses indicated they strongly or mostly agreed that the technology did not interfere with the session (i.e., no tech. interfere), telerehabilitation was as accurate as in-office training (i.e., accurate as in-office), they were comfortable with the evaluation and training (i.e., comfortable w/session), they were interested in a future session (i.e., future interest), they perceived that their magnifier use improved following the training session (i.e., magnifier use imp.), or they were very satisfied with the session (i.e., very satisfied) across study phases and randomized groups.

References

    1. VanderBeek BL. Telemedicine and the exacerbation of health care disparities. JAMA Ophthalmol . 2021; 139(11): 1182–1183.
    1. Aziz K, Moon JY, Parikh R, et al. .. Association of patient characteristics with delivery of ophthalmic telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021; 139(11): 1174–1182.
    1. Choi NG, DiNitto DM, Marti CN, Choi BY.. Telehealth use among older adults during COVID-19: associations with sociodemographic and health characteristics, technology device ownership, and technology learning. J Appl Gerontol . 2022; 41(3): 600–609.
    1. Elam AR, Sidhom D, Ugoh P, et al. .. Disparities in eye care utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021; 233;163–170.
    1. Shalaby WS, Odayappan A, Venkatesh R, et al. .. The impact of COVID-19 on individuals across the spectrum of visual impairment. Am J Ophthalmol . 2021; 227: 53–65.
    1. Compaine BM. The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001.
    1. Choi NG, DiNitto DM, Lee OE, Choi BY.. Internet and health information technology use and psychological distress among older adults with self-reported vision impairment: case-control study. J Med Internet Res . 2020; 22(6): e17294.
    1. Pollard TL, Simpson JA, Lamoureux EL, Keeffe JE.. Barriers to accessing low vision services. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003; 23(4): 321–327.
    1. Lam N, Leat SJ.. Barriers to accessing low-vision care: the patient's perspective. Can J Ophthalmol . 2013; 48: 458–462.
    1. Khimani KS, Battle CR, Malaya L, et al. .. Barriers to low-vision rehabilitation services for visually impaired patients in a multidisciplinary ophthalmology outpatient practice. J Ophthalmol . 2021; 2021: 6122246.
    1. Malkin AG, Ross NC, Chan TL, Protosow K, Bittner AK. U.S. optometrists’ reported practices and perceived barriers for low vision care for mild visual loss. Optom Vis Sci . 2020;97(1): 45–51.
    1. Ihrig C. Home low vision ocular rehabilitation telehealth expansion due to COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health . 2022; 28(6): 873–877.
    1. Malkin AG, Ross NC, Chun MW, Bittner AK, for the CARE Study team. Why are visual assistive mobile apps underutilized by low vision patients? Optom Vis Sci . 2022; 99(4): 333–334.
    1. Bittner AK, Yoshinaga P, Bowers A, Shepherd JD, Succar T, Ross NC.. Feasibility of telerehabilitation for low vision: satisfaction ratings by providers and patients. Optom Vis Sci . 2018; 95(9): 865–872.
    1. Mangione CM, Seddon JM, Cook EF, et al. .. Correlates of cognitive function scores in elderly outpatients. J Am Geriatr Soc . 1993; 41(5): 491–497.
    1. Legge GE, Ross JA, Luebker A, LaMay JM.. Psychophysics of reading. VIII. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test. Optom Vis Sci . 1989; 66(12): 843–853.
    1. Roan VD, Sun KJ, Valentim CCS, et al. .. Patient satisfaction in the era of COVID-19: virtual visit versus in-person visit satisfaction. Optom Vis Sci . 2022; 99(2): 190–194.
    1. Goldstein JE, Massof RW, Deremeik JT, et al. .. Baseline traits of low vision patients served by private outpatient clinical centers in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol . 2012; 130(8): 1028–1037.
    1. Lorenzini MC, Wittich W.. Personalized telerehabilitation for a head-mounted low vision aid: a randomized feasibility study. Optom Vis Sci . 2021; 98(6): 570–581.
    1. Vellata C, Belli S, Balsamo F, Giordano A, Colombo R, Maggioni G.. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation on motor impairments, non-motor symptoms and compliance in patients with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review. Front Neurol . 2021; 12: 627999.
    1. Dias AE, Limongi JC, Barbosa ER, Hsing WT.. Voice telerehabilitation in Parkinson's disease. Codas . 2016; 28(2): 176–181.
    1. Hwang R, Bruning J, Morris NR, Mandrusiak A, Russell T.. Home-based telerehabilitation is not inferior to a centre-based program in patients with chronic heart failure: a randomised trial. J Physiother . 2017; 63(2): 101–107.
    1. van Egmond MA, Engelbert RHH, Klinkenbijl JHG, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van der Schaaf M.. Physiotherapy with telerehabilitation in patients with complicated postoperative recovery after esophageal cancer surgery: feasibility study. J Med Internet Res . 2020; 22(6): e16056.
    1. Hoaas H, Andreassen HK, Lien LA, Hjalmarsen A, Zanaboni P.. Adherence and factors affecting satisfaction in long-term telerehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a mixed methods study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak . 2016; 16: 26.
    1. Tsai LLY, McNamara RJ, Dennis SM, et al. .. Satisfaction and experience with a supervised home-based real-time videoconferencing telerehabilitation exercise program in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Int J Telerehabil . 2016; 8(2): 27–38.
    1. Assenza C, Catania H, Antenore C, et al. .. Continuity of care during COVID-19 lockdown: a survey on stakeholders' experience with telerehabilitation. Front Neurol. 2021; 11: 617276.
    1. Eslami Jahromi M, Ahmadian L. Evaluating satisfaction of patients with stutter regarding the tele-speech therapy method and infrastructure. Int J Med Inform . 2018; 115: 128–133.
    1. Sharma S, Ward EC, Burns C, Theodoros D, Russell T.. Assessing dysphagia via telerehabilitation: patient perceptions and satisfaction. Int J Speech Lang Pathol . 2013; 15(2): 176–183.
    1. Bughin F, Bui G, Ayoub B, et al. .. Impact of a mobile telerehabilitation solution on metabolic health outcomes and rehabilitation adherence in patients with obesity: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth . 2021; 9(12): e28242.
    1. Tchero H, Tabue Teguo M, Lannuzel A, Rusch E. Telerehabilitation for stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res . 2018; 20(10): e10867.
    1. Chumbler NR, Li X, Quigley P, et al. .. A randomized controlled trial on stroke telerehabilitation: the effects on falls self-efficacy and satisfaction with care. J Telemed Telecare . 2015; 21(3): 139–143.
    1. Shukla H, Nair SR, Thakker D.. Role of telerehabilitation in patients following total knee arthroplasty: evidence from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare . 2017; 23(2): 339–346.
    1. Nelson M, Bourke M, Crossley K, Russell T.. Telerehabilitation is non-inferior to usual care following total hip replacement—a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Physiotherapy . 2020; 107: 19–27.
    1. Kuether J, Moore A, Kahan J, et al. .. Telerehabilitation for total hip and knee arthroplasty patients: a pilot series with high patient satisfaction. HSS J . 2019; 15(3): 221–225.
    1. Levy CE, Silverman E, Jia H, Geiss M, Omura D.. Effects of physical therapy delivery via home video telerehabilitation on functional and health-related quality of life outcomes. J Rehabil Res Dev . 2015; 52(3): 361–370.
    1. Ott KK, Schein RM, Saptono A, Dicianno BE, Schmeler MR.. Veteran and provider satisfaction with a home-based telerehabilitation assessment for wheelchair seating and mobility. Int J Telerehabil . 2020; 12(2): 3–12.
    1. Tenforde AS, Borgstrom H, Polich G, et al. .. Outpatient physical, occupational, and speech therapy synchronous telemedicine: a survey study of patient satisfaction with virtual visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Phys Med Rehabil . 2020; 99(11): 977–981.
    1. Milani G, Demattè G, Ferioli M, et al. .. Telerehabilitation in Italy during the COVID-19 lockdown: a feasibility and acceptability study. Int J Telerehabil . 2021; 13(1): e6334.
    1. Buabbas AJ, Albahrouh SE, Alrowayeh HN, Alshawaf H.. Telerehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic: patients' attitudes and satisfaction and physical therapists' experiences. Med Princ Pract . 2022; 31(2): 156–164.
    1. Alsobayel H, Alodaibi F, Albarrati A, et al. .. Does telerehabilitation help in reducing disability among people with musculoskeletal conditions? A preliminary study. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2022; 19(1): 72.
    1. Bittner AK, Yoshinaga PD, Wykstra SL, Li T.. Telerehabilitation for people with low vision. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2020; 2: CD011019.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel