Closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) are used by many elderly people who have age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The functional vision of 68 participants, which was measured immediately after they adopted CCTVs, suggested successful outcomes, but the psychosocial impact of the use of CCTVs did not peak until a month later. The findings help identify circumstances in which CCTV-assisted rehabilitation may be enhanced for better long-term outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoernerK., ReinhardtJ. P., & HorowitzA. (2006). The effect of rehabilitation service use on coping patterns over time among older adults with age-related vision loss. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20, 478–487.
2.
BrodyB. L., Roch-LevecqA. C., ThomasR. G., KaplanR. M., & BrownS. I. (2005). Self-management of age-related macular degeneration at the 6-month follow-up: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Ophthalmology, 123, 46–53.
3.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
DayH., & JutaiJ. (1996). Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: The PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9, 159–168.
5.
DickinsonC. (1998). The place of low vision in optometric practice. In DickinsonC., Low vision: Principles and practice (pp. 317–323). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
6.
FuhrerM. J., JutaiJ. W., SchererM. J., & DeRuyterF. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(22), 1243–1251.
7.
HindsA., SinclairA., ParkJ., SuttieA., PatersonH., & MacdonaldM. (2003). Impact of an interdisciplinary low vision service on the quality of life of low vision patients. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 87, 1391–1396.
8.
JutaiJ. (1999). Quality of life impact of assistive technology. Rehabilitation Engineering, 14, 2–7.
9.
JutaiJ., & DayH. (2002). Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability, 14, 107–111.
10.
JutaiJ., DayH., WoolrichW., & StrongG. (2003). The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses. Optometry, 74, 299–308.
11.
JutaiJ., FuhrerM. J., DemersL., SchererM. J., & DeRuyterF. (2005). Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 294–302.
12.
LamoureuxE. L., PallantJ. F., PesudovsK., ReesG., HassellJ. B., & KeeffeJ. E. (2007). The effectiveness of low-vision rehabilitation on participation in daily living and quality of life. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 48, 1476–1482.
13.
LundR., & WatsonG. R. (1997). The CCTV book: Habilitation and rehabilitation with closed circuit television systems.Oslo, Norway: Synsforum Ans.
14.
MangioneC. M., LeeP. P., GutierrezP. R., SpritzerK., BerryS., & HaysR. D. (2001). Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Archives of Ophthalmology, 119, 1050–1058.
15.
MassofR. W. (2002). A model of the prevalence and incidence of low vision and blindness among adults in the U.S. Optometry and Vision Science, 79, 31–38.
16.
McLindenM., DouglasG., McCallS., & ArterC. (2002). Developing effective practice in the use of LVAs by children who have multiple disabilities and visual impairment in the United Kingdom. 11th ICEVI World Conference, “New Visions: Moving Toward an Inclusive Community,” 27 July–2 August 2002, the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.icevi.org/publications/ICEVI-WC2002/papers/02-topic/02-mclinden.htm
17.
OverburyO., & CollinC. (2000). Vision rehabilitation services in the Americas. In SilverstoneB., LangM. A., RosenthalB. P., & FayeE. (Eds.), The Lighthouse handbook on vision impairment and vision rehabilitation (pp. 717–732). New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
PapeL.-B.T., KimJ., & WeinerB. (2002). The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1-3), 5–20.
19.
PorterT. (2002). Vision based devices for low vision assessment. International Society for Low Vision Research and Rehabilitation—Vision 2002. Retrieved from http://www.islrr.org/Vision02/700.html
20.
ResnikoffS., PascoliniD., Etya'aleD., KocurI., PararajasegaramR., PokharelG. P., & MariottiS. P. (2004). Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82, 844–851.
RussellW., HarperR., ReevesB., WatermanH., HensonD., & McLeodD. (2001). Randomised controlled trial of an integrated versus an optometric low vision rehabilitation service for patients with age-related macular degeneration: Study design and methodology. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 21(1), 36–44.
23.
SaundersG. H., & JutaiJ. W. (2004). Hearing specific and generic measures of the psychosocial impact of hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15, 238–248.
24.
SchwartzC. E., AndresenE. M., NosekM. A., & KrahnG. L. (2007). Response shift theory: Important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88, 529–536.
25.
ScilleyK., DeCarloD. K., WellsJ., & OwsleyC. (2004). Vision-specific health-related quality of life in age-related maculopathy patients presenting for low vision services. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 11, 131–146.
26.
SeidmanK. R., & HoodC. M. (1996). Considerations in establishing low vision care. In RosenthalB., & ColeR. (Eds.), Problems in optometry: Remediation and management of low vision (pp. 249–265). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott and Co.
27.
SprangersM. A. G., MoinpourC. M., MoynihanT. J., PatrickD. L., RevickiD. A., & the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. (2002). Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users’ guide for clinicians. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 561–571.
28.
StelmackJ. A., StelmackT. R., & MassofR. W. (2002). Measuring low-vision rehabilitation outcomes with the NEI VFQ-25. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 43, 2859–2868.
29.
StrongG., JutaiJ., BeversP., HartleyM., & PlotkinA. (2003). The psychosocial impact of closed-circuit television (CCTV) low vision aids. Visual Impairment Research, 5, 179–190.
30.
StrongG., JutaiJ., PlotkinA., & BeversP. (2008). Competitive enablement: A consumer-oriented approach to device selection in device-assisted vision rehabilitation. In MannW. C. (Ed.), Aging, disability and independence: Selected papers from the 4th International Conference on Aging, Disability and Independence 2008 (pp. 175–195). Gainesville: University of Florida.
