The Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT): Design and Methodology

Abstract

Background Visual impairment is a major public health problem. Vision rehabilitation programs have the potential to restore independence and improve quality of life for persons with permanent vision loss, and few have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Purpose The Veterans Affairs (VA) Low Vision Intervention Trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a new outpatient low vision rehabilitation program.

Methods 126 patients with moderate and severe vision loss due to macular diseases are randomized to low vision treatment in an outpatient setting or a usual care control group at two VA facilities in Hines, Illinois, and Salisbury, North Carolina. The primary outcome is the change in visual reading ability from baseline to four months measured with the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire-48 (VA LV VFQ-48). Secondary outcomes compare the mean change in visual ability measured with the VA LV VFQ-48 (overall ability, mobility, visual information processing, visual motor skills) for the treatment and control groups. Costs and cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment are evaluated.

Results The low vision rehabilitation setting, use of a waiting list control group to address ethical issues, development of the treatment protocol, development of a vision function questionnaire for patients to self-report the difficulty they experience performing daily activities, and the use of Rasch analysis to develop and estimate this outcome measure are described.

Limitations If the new low vision rehabilitation program is proven effective, studies will be needed to determine which of the multiple aspects of the intervention are necessary and sufficient.

Conclusions The challenges of conducting clinical trials in a rehabilitation setting and use of a waiting list (deferred treatment) control group extend beyond LOVIT. The design and methods of LOVIT may be applicable to other trials of rehabilitation services and to outcomes for which reliable and valid measurement tools must be developed. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 650—660. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

US Department of Health and Human Services. Vision research a national plan: 1999—2003; NIH Publication No. 98-4120 . National Eye Institute, Bethesda MD, 1998: 117—30.

Massof RW A model of the prevalence and incidence of low vision and blindness among adults in the US. Optom Vis Sci 2002 ; 79: 31—8.

Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans Health Administration, Blind Rehabilitation Service. Coordinated Services for Blinded Veterans IB 11-59 (revised) P87250. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington DC, 1996.

Stelmack J. , Szlyk J. , Stelmack T. , et al. Use of Rasch person item map in exploratory data analysis: a clinical perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004 ; 41: 233—42.

Szlyk JP , Stelmack J. , Massof RW , et al. Performance of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. J Vis Impair Blind 2004; 98: 261—75.

Stelmack JA , Szlyk JP , Stelmack TR , et al. Psychometric properties of the Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 3919—28.

Stelmack JA , Szlyk JP , Stelmack TR , et al. Measuring outcomes of low vision rehabilitation with the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VA LV VFQ-48). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 3253—61.

Watson GR , De L'Aune W. , Long S. , Maino J. , Stelmack J. Veterans' use of low vision devices for reading. Optom Vis Sci 1997; 74: 260—5.

Watson GR , De L'Aune , Stelmack J. , Maino J. , Long S. National survey of the impact of low vision device use among veterans. Optom Vis Sci 1997; 74: 249—59.

10.

Stelmack JA , Stelmack TR , Massof RW Measuring low-vision outcomes with the NEI VFQ-25. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43: 2859—68.

11.

De L'Aune WR , Williams MD , Welsh RL Outcomes assessment of the rehabilitation of the visually impaired. J Rehabil Res Dev 1999; 36: 273—93.

12.

Stelmack JA , Moran D. , Dean D. , Massof RW Short and long-term effects of an intensive inpatient vision rehabilitation program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 691—5.

13.

Klein BE , Klein R. , Lee KE , Cruickshanks KJ Performance-based and self-assessed measures of visual function as related to history of falls, hip fractures and gait time. The Beaver Dam Eye Study . Ophthalmol 1998; 105: 160—4.

14.

Freidman SM , Munoz B. , Rubin GS , et al. Characteristics of discrepancies between self-reported visual function and measured reading speed. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project Team. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999 ; 40: 858—64.

15.

Stelmack J. Quality of life of low-vision patients and outcomes of low-vision rehabilitation. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 335—42.

16.

Pesudovs K.

Patient-centered measurement in ophthalmology — a paradign shift. BMC

Ophthalmol 2006; 6: 25.

17.

Massof RW The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 515—52.

18.

Bond TG , Fox CM Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, 2001.

19.

Massof RW An interval-scaled scoring algorithm for visual function questionnaires . Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 689—704.

20.

Stelmack JA , Massof RW Using the VA LV VFQ-48 and LV VFQ-20 in Low Vision Rehabilitation. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 705—9.

21.

Massof RW , Fletcher DC Evaluation of the NEI visual functioning questionnaire as an interval measure of visual ability in low vision. Vision Res 2001; 41: 397—413.

22.

Massof RW Application of stochastic measurement models to visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2005; 12: 103—24.

23.

Massof RW , Hsu CT , Baker FH , et al. Visual disability variables II: The difficulty of tasks for a sample of low-vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 954—67.

24.

Stelmack JA , Rosenbloom AA , Brenneman CS , Stelmack TR Patients' perception of the need for low vision devices. J Vis Impairment and Blind 2003; 97: 521—35.

25.

Nutheti R. , Shamanna BR , Krishnaiah S. , Gothwal VK , Thomas R. , Rao GN Perceived visual ability for functional vision performance among persons with low vision in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 3458—65.

26.

Baldasare J. , Watson GR , Whittaker SG , Miller-Shaffer . The development and evaluation of a reading test for low vision individuals with macular loss. J Vis Impair Blind 1986; 80: 785—9.

27.

Legge GE , Ross JA , Luebker A. , LaMay JM Psychophysics of reading VII: the Minnesota low-vision reading test . Optom Vis Sci 1989; 66: 843—53.

28.

Ware JE Jr , Sherbourne CD The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) . Medical Care 1992; 36: 473—83.

29.

Radloff LS The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement 1977; 1: 385—401.

30.

Raasch TW , Leat SJ , Kleinstein RN , Bullimore MA , Cutter GR Evaluating the value of low vision services. J Am Optom Assoc 1997; 68: 287—95.

31.

Pallant JF , Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Psychol 2007; 46: 1—18.

32.

Chang CH , Wright BD , Cella D. , Hays RD The SF-36 physical and mental health factors were confirmed in cancer and HIV/AIDS patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 68—72.

33.

Hagell P. , Broman JE Measurement properties and hierarchical item structure of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale in Parkinson's disease. J Sleep Res 2007; 16: 102—9.

34.

Decruynaere C. , Thonnard JL , Plaghki L. Measure of experimental pain using Rasch analysis . Eur J Pain 2007 ; 11: 469—74.