The p‐<scp>EVES</scp> study design and methodology: a randomised controlled trial to compare portable electronic vision enhancement systems (p‐<scp>EVES</scp>) to optical magnifiers for near vision activities in visual impairment

Taylor, John; Bambrick, Rachel; Dutton, Michelle; Harper, Robert A.; Ryan, Barbara; Tudor-Edwards, Rhiannon; Waterman, Heather; Whitaker, Chris; Dickinson, Christine

doi:10.1111/opo.12149

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…23 A current cross-over design study is comparing the use of a portable VM to using optical magnifiers (p-EVES). 24 In this study there was a significant improvement in reported well-being when all subjects were considered and results adjusted for vision and demographic characteristics. The IVI well-being subscale includes questions about how much the subject perceives their vision to impact their ability to cope and emotions such as frustration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well-being from a prospective, randomized study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-Both optical and electronic magnification are available to patients with low vision. Electronic video magnifiers are more expensive than optical magnifiers, but they offer additional benefits, including variable magnification and contrast. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of access to a video magnifier (VM) added to standard comprehensive vision rehabilitation (VR).Methods-In this prospective study, 37 subjects with central field loss were randomized to receive standard VR (VR group, 18 subjects) or standard VR plus VM (VM group, 19 subjects). Subjects read the International Reading Speed Texts (IReST), a bank check, and a phone number at enrollment, at 1 month, and after occupational therapy (OT) as indicated to address patient goals. The Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire, a version of the Activity Inventory (AI), and the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) were administered at enrollment, 1 month, after OT, 1 month later, and 1 year after enrollment. Assessments at enrollment and 1 month later were evaluated.Results-At 1 month, the VM group displayed significant improvement in reading continuous print as measured by the IReST (P = 0.01) but did not differ on IVI, AI, or DASS. From enrollment to 1 month all subjects improved in their ability to spot read (phone number and check; P < 0.01 for both). The VM group improved in their ability to find and read a number in a phone book more than the VR group at 1 month after initial consultation (P = 0.02). All reported better well-being (P = 0.02).Conclusions-All subjects reported better well-being on the IVI. The VM group read faster and was better at two spot reading tasks but did not differ from the VR group in other outcome measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well-being from a prospective, randomized study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The additional benefits of p‐EVES systems over traditional optical magnifiers include binocular viewing, habitual working distance, variable magnification, adjustable contrast settings and freeze frame facility (Taylor et al. ). In the Welsh NHS low vision service, p‐EVES devices are now provided to eligible patients and anecdotal evidence suggests that they are both popular and successful (Charlton et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial

Bray

Brand

Taylor

et al. 2016

Acta Ophthalmologica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo determine the incremental cost‐effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p‐EVES) devices compared with optical low vision aids (LVAs), for improving near vision visual function, quality of life and well‐being of people with a visual impairment.MethodsAn AB/BA randomized crossover trial design was used. Eighty‐two participants completed the study. Participants were current users of optical LVAs who had not tried a p‐EVES device before and had a stable visual impairment. The trial intervention was the addition of a p‐EVES device to the participant's existing optical LVA(s) for 2 months, and the control intervention was optical LVA use only, for 2 months. Cost‐effectiveness and cost‐utility analyses were conducted from a societal perspective.ResultsThe mean cost of the p‐EVES intervention was £448. Carer costs were £30 (4.46 hr) less for the p‐EVES intervention compared with the LVA only control. The mean difference in total costs was £417. Bootstrapping gave an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £736 (95% CI £481 to £1525) for a 7% improvement in near vision visual function. Cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) ranged from £56 991 (lower 95% CI = £19 801) to £66 490 (lower 95% CI = £23 055). Sensitivity analysis varying the commercial price of the p‐EVES device reduced ICERs by up to 75%, with cost per QALYs falling below £30 000.ConclusionPortable electronic vision enhancement system (p‐EVES) devices are likely to be a cost‐effective use of healthcare resources for improving near vision visual function, but this does not translate into cost‐effective improvements in quality of life, capability or well‐being.

show abstract

“…The design of the current study inevitably meant that participants were more familiar with optical aids than with p‐EVES devices. The time allowed to integrate p‐EVES within their daily routine was only 2 months, but this was based on the fact that previous focus groups suggested it only took a few days to become accustomed to p‐EVES devices . There was also no formal training, although participants had 5–30 min (mean 15 (S.D.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study design and methodology have been presented and discussed in a previous publication 6 and are summarised briefly here. Experienced optical LVA users were recruited to a prospective two-arm cross-over randomised controlled trial (RCT).…”

Section: Trial Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The time allowed to integrate p-EVES within their daily routine was only 2 months, but this was based on the fact that previous focus groups suggested it only took a few days to become accustomed to p-EVES devices. 6 There was also no formal training, although participants had 5-30 min (mean 15 (S.D. 6)) of task-based practice.…”

Section: Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of portable electronic and optical magnifiers for near vision activities in low vision: a randomised crossover trial

Taylor

Bambrick

Brand

et al. 2017

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The p‐EVES study design and methodology: a randomised controlled trial to compare portable electronic vision enhancement systems (p‐EVES) to optical magnifiers for near vision activities in visual impairment

Cited by 13 publications

References 36 publications

Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well-being from a prospective, randomized study

Adding access to a video magnifier to standard vision rehabilitation: initial results on reading performance and well-being from a prospective, randomized study

Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial

Effectiveness of portable electronic and optical magnifiers for near vision activities in low vision: a randomised crossover trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About