2008
DOI: 10.1177/0145482x0810200704
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Driving and Low Vision: An Evidence-based Review of Rehabilitation

Abstract: This systematic review of the effectiveness of driver rehabilitation interventions found that driver training programs enhance driving skills and awareness, but further research is needed to determine their effectiveness in improving driving performance of drivers with low vision. More research is also needed to determine the effectiveness of low vision devices for driving. LOW VISION DEVICES USED FOR DRIVING Low vision devices can be used to improve the visual performance of drivers with visual impairments, i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The articles were divided into five categories on the basis of type of intervention: occupation based and client centered, functional activities, performance skills, home modification and assistive technology, and driving. Because driving has been well covered in several other recent systematic reviews (Arbesman & Pellerito, 2008; Hunt & Arbesman, 2008; Kua, Korner-Bitensky, Desrosiers, Man-Son-Hing, & Marshall, 2007; Stav, 2008; Strong, Jutai, Russell-Minda, & Evans, 2008), those findings are not included in this article. Supplemental Table 1 (available online at http://ajot.aotapress.net [navigate to this article, and click on “supplemental materials”]) lists selected articles from this systematic review and provides the objectives, design, a description of the interventions and outcome measures, and summaries of the results and limitations for each study.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The articles were divided into five categories on the basis of type of intervention: occupation based and client centered, functional activities, performance skills, home modification and assistive technology, and driving. Because driving has been well covered in several other recent systematic reviews (Arbesman & Pellerito, 2008; Hunt & Arbesman, 2008; Kua, Korner-Bitensky, Desrosiers, Man-Son-Hing, & Marshall, 2007; Stav, 2008; Strong, Jutai, Russell-Minda, & Evans, 2008), those findings are not included in this article. Supplemental Table 1 (available online at http://ajot.aotapress.net [navigate to this article, and click on “supplemental materials”]) lists selected articles from this systematic review and provides the objectives, design, a description of the interventions and outcome measures, and summaries of the results and limitations for each study.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The criteria are represented by 26 dichotomous and one six-point rating scales (for sample size) that assess how findings are reported, as well as issues of internal and external validity and power. Consistent with the practice of Strong et al, 25 we scored all items dichotomously, and particular scoring ranges were assigned the quality designations of excellent (26–27), good (20–25), fair (15–19), and poor (0–14).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, licensing standards worldwide include a legal visual requirement for driving eligibility, which most commonly includes high contrast visual acuity (VA), despite evidence that high contrast VA may not be a strong predictor of driving performance and safety . Other measures, such as contrast sensitivity and the useful field of view demonstrate a strong relationship with driving performance and have been recommended to supplement high contrast VA screening tests for driving but are not typically included in driving licensure standards.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%