Background: There has been growing concern about the impact of restrictions put in place to contain the coronavirus pandemic on loneliness, particularly in individuals with disabilities. This study explored the longitudinal impact of the pandemic on loneliness in these individuals, with a focus on those living with visual impairment (VI).Methods: An online survey was conducted in April-2020 and repeated in March 2021 to explore current life circumstances, health-related behaviours, sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) and social well-being, including state anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Index) and loneliness (UCLA Loneliness scale). A convenience sample of 602 participants completed the first survey. Participants who agreed to be re-contacted were invited to take part in the follow-up survey.Results: Data is presented for the 160 participants who completed both timepoints. At both timepoints, median loneliness was significantly higher in participants with disabilities and those with VI than in participants with no disabilities. While there was no significant change in loneliness in any of the three subgroups, participants with VI experienced the largest increase in median loneliness. Loneliness was associated with having a mental health condition and higher levels of state anxiety at both timepoints.Conclusions: Individuals with disabilities such as VI experienced consistently higher levels of loneliness than those with no disabilities throughout the pandemic. While loneliness remained relatively stable in individuals with no disabilities, it increased, albeit to a non-significant level, in those with disabilities and particularly those with VI. Interventions designed to alleviate loneliness may benefit from addressing state anxiety.

BackgroundThere is growing awareness of the health inequalities experienced by minority ethnic communities, who make up an increasing proportion of the United Kingdom (UK) population and have been found to be at increased risk of visual impairment (V.I.). V.I. impacts on a wide range of life domains including employment, social functioning and activities of daily living. Considering existing health inequalities, the increased risk of V.I. and its wide-ranging impact, it is important to understand the experiences of adults from minority ethnic communities living with V.I. in the UK.MethodsA rapid evidence review of academic and gray literature published since 2005 and in English was performed. A search of AMED, CINAHL Plus and MEDLINE via EBSCOhost identified 969 articles. Articles were included in the review if they reported findings relating to the UK-context, to adults from minority ethnic communities living with V.I., and to experiences of V.I. and the eyecare pathway.ResultsA total of 11 academic articles and 4 charity reports presented findings relating to perceptions of V.I. and eye disease (n = 3), access to services and service use (n = 5), impact of interventions (n = 7), the wider impact of V.I. (n = 2), and registration status (n = 1). Much of the literature focused on primary eyecare resulting in a comprehensive list of barriers and recommendations to increase eye tests. Less research addressed experiences and use of services further along the eyecare pathway although use of services may be low. Overall, the research on the experiences of adults with V.I. from minority ethnic communities in the UK remains anecdotal, outdated or unavailable. There are substantial gaps in the evidence relating to the wider impact of V.I., the impact of perceptions of V.I., and the use of services beyond primary eyecare.ConclusionsThis review summarizes our current knowledge of the experiences of adults from minority ethnic communities living with V.I. in the UK and highlights substantial gaps in the evidence. The findings provide practical implications for practitioners and researchers committed to addressing health inequalities in the field of eyecare in the UK.

Background: Research exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sleep in people with disabilities has been scarce. This study provides a preliminary assessment of sleep in people with disabilities, across two timepoints during the pandemic, with a focus on those with visual impairment (VI).Methods: Two online surveys were conducted between April 2020 and March 2021 to explore sleep quality using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). A convenience sample of 602 participants completed the first survey and 160 completed the follow-up survey.Results: Across both timepoints, participants with disabilities reported significantly poorer global sleep quality and higher levels of sleep disturbance, use of sleep medication and daytime dysfunction than those with no disabilities. Participants with VI reported significantly higher levels of sleep disturbance and use of sleep medication at both timepoints, poorer global sleep quality, sleep duration and latency at time 1, and daytime dysfunction at time 2, than those with no disabilities. Global sleep quality, sleep duration, sleep efficiency, and self-rated sleep quality deteriorated significantly in participants with no disabilities, but daytime dysfunction increased in all three groups. Disability and state anxiety were significant predictors of sleep quality across both surveys.Conclusion: While sleep was consistently poorer in people with disabilities such as VI, it appears that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a greater impact on sleep in people with no disabilities. State anxiety and, to a lesser extent, disability, were significant predictors of sleep across both surveys, suggesting the need to address anxiety in interventions targeted toward improving sleep.

BackgroundDespite its ubiquity, it is often not clear what organizations and services mean by well-being. Visual impairment (VI) has been associated with poorer well-being and well-being has become a key outcome for support and services for adults living with VI. A shared understanding of what well-being means is therefore essential to enable assessment of well-being and cross-service provision of well-being support.ObjectivesTo provide an overview of the ways in which well-being has been conceptualized in research relating to adults living with VI.Eligibility criteriaArticles were included in the review if the article discussed well-being in the context of adults living with VI, was available in English and as a full text.Data sourcesA systematic search using search terms relating to VI and well-being was conducted in EBSCOHost (Medline, CINHL) and Ovid (Embase Classic, Embase, Emcare 1995, Health + Psychosocial, HMIC Health Management Info, APA, PsycArticles, PsycInfo, PsycTests).ChartingA team of three reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full-texts articles and extracted data. Ambiguous articles were referred to the research group and discussed.ResultsOf 10,662 articles identified in the search, 249 were included in the review. These referred to 38 types of well-being. The most common types were general well-being (n = 101; 40.6%) emotional well-being (n = 86, 34.5%) and psychological well-being (n = 66, 26.5%). Most articles (n = 150; 60.2%) referred to one type only, with a maximum of 9 listed in one article. A large number of articles did not clearly define well-being. A wide range of indicators of well-being related to the domains of hedonia, mood, positive and negative affect, quality of life, mental health, eudaimonia, self/identity, health, psychological reactions to disability and health problems, functioning, social functioning and environment, were extracted, many of which were used just once.ConclusionsThere remains a lack of consensus on how well-being is conceptualized and assessed in the context of adult VI. A standardized multi-domain approach derived with input from adults with VI and practitioners working with them is required to enable comparison of findings and cross-organizational provision of support.

ObjectiveTelerehabilitation for individuals with vision impairment aims to maintain maximum physical and/or psychological functioning through remote service delivery. This review aims to describe the type of telerehabilitation services available to people with vision impairment and summarise evidence on health-related outcomes, well-being and cost-effectiveness.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesCINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsychINFO, Embase, PubMed, HMIC and Ovid Emcare were searched, without date restrictions up to 24 May 2021. Charity and government websites, conference proceedings and clinical trial databases were also examined.Eligibility criteriaEligible studies evaluated benefits of telerehabilitation services for adults with vision impairment. Studies were excluded if they were not available in English, or focused on distance learning of visually impaired students.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened articles and extracted data. A risk of bias analysis was performed.Outcome measuresMeasures of benefit included performance-based assessment, patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness.ResultsOf 4472 articles, 10 eligible studies were included. Outcomes addressed patient satisfaction (n=4;33.3%), quality-of-life, activities of daily living and well-being (n=4;33.3%), objective visual function (n=2;16.6%) and knowledge relating to ocular symptoms (n=1;8.3%). Two studies addressed multiple outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was addressed in one article (8.3%). Patients were generally satisfied with their experiences, which had a range of positive benefits on functional and quality-of-life outcomes in areas relating to daily activities (eg, reading, making phone calls). Telerehabilitation allowed patients to undertake vision optimisation training to prevent vision deterioration. Grey literature indicated that there are no completed clinical trials relating to low vision telerehabilitation. Charity services had implemented digital skills training to help beneficiaries communicate remotely.ConclusionWhile acceptability of telerehabilitation was mostly high, limited real-world data are available which raises questions around the long-term desirability of this approach. Further trials are needed to evaluate telerehabilitation using a robust set of outcome measures.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021254825.