Factors related to the use of a head-mounted display for individuals with low vision

References

• Organization WH. Priority assistive products list. Geneva (CH): WHO. 2017. Available from: http://www.who.int/phi/implementation/assistive_technology/low_res_english.pdf
   Google Scholar
• LaPlante MP, Hendershot GE, Moss AJ. Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: prevalence, payment, need, and trends. Adv Data. 1992;(217):1–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mann W, Ottenbacher K, Hurren D, et al. Relationship of severity of physical disability to pain, functional status and assistive device use of home-based elderly clients. J Home Health Care Manag Pract. 1995;8(1):75–84.
   Google Scholar
• Tomita MR, Mann WC, Fraas LF, et al. Predictors of the use of assistive devices that address physical impairments among community-based frail elders. J Appl Gerontol. 2004;23(2):141–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corn A, Lusk KE. Perspectives on low vision. In: Corn A, Koenig A, editors. Foundations of low vision: clinical and functional perspectives. 2nd ed. New York: AFB Press; 2010. p. 3–25.
   Google Scholar
• National Eye Health Education Program (NEHEP). Learn about low vision. Bethesda (MD): National Eye Institute. 2019. Available from: https://nei.nih.gov/nehep/programs/lowvision/learn-about
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(21):1321–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verza R, Carvalho ML, Battaglia MA, et al. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Mult Scler. 2006;12(1):88–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sugawara AT, Ramos VD, Alfieri FM, et al. Abandonment of assistive products: assessing abandonment levels and factors that impact on it. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzini MC, Wittich W. Factors related to the use of magnifying low vision aids: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Janz NK, Becker MH. The Health Belief Model: a decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984;11(1):1–47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Starace F, Massa A, Amico KR, et al. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy: an empirical test of the information-motivation-behavioral skills model. Health Psychol. 2006;25(2):153–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen CH, Wu JR, Yen M, et al. A model of medication-taking behavior in elderly individuals with chronic disease. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2007;22(5):359–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes EA, Hughes DA, Morrison VL. Predicting adherence to medications using health psychology theories: a systematic review of 20 years of empirical research. Value Health. 2014;17(8):863–876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conn VS, Enriquez M, Ruppar TM, et al. Meta-analyses of theory use in medication adherence intervention research. Am J Health Behav. 2016;40(2):155–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. The impact of assistive technology on the lives of people with disabilities. In: Gray DB, Quatrano LA, Lieberman ML, editors. Designing and using assistive technology: the human perspective. Baltimore (MD): Brookes Publishing Co.; 1997. p. 99–115.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Meloni F, Borsci S. The abandonment of assistive technology in Italy: a survey of National Health Service users. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;52(4):516–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels R, Dijcks B, Soede M, et al. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technol Disabil. 2004;15(4):231–238.
   Google Scholar
• Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man Mach Stud. 1993;38(3):475–487.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Mis Quart. 2003;27(3):425–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peek ST, Wouters EJ, van Hoof J, et al. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(4):235–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva (CH): WHO. 2001. Available from: https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Bauer SM, Lenker JA, et al. Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(4):235–248.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ortiz A, Chung ST, Legge GE, et al. Reading with a head-mounted video magnifier. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(11):755–763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballinger R, Lalle P, Maino J, et al. Veterans Affairs Multicenter Low Vision Enhancement System (LVES) study: clinical results. Report 1: effects of manual-focus LVES on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Optometry. 2000;71(12):764–774.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geruschat D, Deremeik J, Whited S. Head-mounted displays: are they practical for school-age children? J Vis Impair Blind. 1999;93(8):485–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin CS, Jan HA, Lay YL, et al. Evaluating the image quality of closed circuit television magnification systems versus a head-mounted display for people with low vision. Assist Technol. 2014;26(4):202–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolffsohn JS, Peterson RC. A review of current knowledge on electronic vision enhancement systems for the visually impaired. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003;23(1):35–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deemer AD, Bradley CK, Ross NC, et al. Low vision enhancement with head-mounted video display systems: are we there yet? Optom Vis Sci. 2018;95(9):694–703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• eSight Corporation. eSkills user guide & proficiency program. Toronto (Canada): The Corporation; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Wittich W, Lorenzini MC, Markowitz SN, et al. The effect of a head-mounted low vision device on visual function. Optom Vis Sci. 2018;95(9):774–784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein RB, Dugan E, Trachtenberg F, et al. The impact of a video intervention on the use of low vision assistive devices. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(3):208–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirkilinc E, Palamar M, Uretmen O. Low vision aids: the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation. Turk Klin J Med Sci. 2013;33(4):981–986.
   Google Scholar
• Leat SJ, Fryer A, Rumney NJ. Outcome of low vision aid provision: the effectiveness of a low vision clinic. Optom Vis Sci. 1994;71(3):199–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachofer CS. Long-term optical device use by young adults with low vision [dissertation]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Goodrich GL, Mehr EB, Darling NC. Parameters in the use of CCTV's and optical aids. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1980;57(12):881–892.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harper R, Doorduyn K, Reeves B, et al. Evaluating the outcomes of low vision rehabilitation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1999;19(1):3–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bischoff P. Long-term results of low vision rehabilitation in age-related macular degeneration. Doc Ophthalmol. 1995;89(4):305–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty BE, Kehler KB, Jamara R, et al. Abandonment of low-vision devices in an outpatient population. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(11):1283–1287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson GR, Lʼaune WD, Long S, et al. Veterans' use of low vision devices for reading. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74(5):260–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauer AL, Ro S. ATO MS Project technical report – factors in assistive technology device abandonment: replacing “abandonment” with “discontinuance. Milwaukee (WI): University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 2006 [cited 2018 Dec 10]. Available from: http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive/technicalreports/tr-discontinuance.html
   Google Scholar
• Williams JR. The Declaration of Helsinki and public health. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(8):650–651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culham LE, Chabra A, Rubin GS. Clinical performance of electronic, head-mounted, low-vision devices. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24(4):281–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technol Disabil. 2002;14(3):107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Rehabil. 1996;9(2):159–168.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 1996;8(1):3–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jutai J. Quality of life impact of assistive technology. Rehabil Eng. 1999;14:2–7.
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1–3):31–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodds AG, Bailey P, Pearson A, et al. Psychological factors in acquired visual impairment: the development of a scale of adjustment. J Vis Impair Blind. 1991;85(7):306–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek MA, Fuhrer MJ, Howland CA. Independence among people with disabilities: II. Personal independence profile. Rehabil Counsel Bull. 1992;36(1):21–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vash CL, Crewe NM. Psychology of disability. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Pub; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Simon SE, Patrick A. Understanding and assessing consumer satisfaction in rehabilitation. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas. 1997;1(5):1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 2000;12(2):96–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, et al. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med A. 1981;15(3 Pt 1):221–229.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Day H, Jankey SG. Lessons from the literature: towards a holistic model of quality of life. In: Renwick R, Brown I, Nagler M, editors. Quality of life in health promotion and rehabilitation: conceptual approaches. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1996. p. 39–50.
   Google Scholar
• Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11(2):87–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinnert T, Lindner H, Behrens-Baumann W. Nutzungshäufigkeit vergrößernder Sehhilfen im Wohnbereich von SehbehindertenKlinische. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1999;215(11):305–310.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chan IM, Friedman GR, Ho PC, et al. Low-vision aids for patients with suboptimal vision after closed vitrectomy for diabetic vitreous hemorrhage. Ophthalmology. 1984;91(5):458–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker S, Wahl HW, Schilling O, et al. Assistive device use in visually impaired older adults: role of control beliefs. Gerontologist. 2005;45(6):739–746.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbloom AA. Prognostic factors in the visual rehabilitation of aging patients. New Outlook Blind. 1974;68(3):124–127.
   Google Scholar
• Tuazon JR, Jahan A, Jutai JW. Understanding adherence to assistive devices among older adults: a conceptual review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;14:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. The Matching Person & Technology (MPT) model manual. In: Maheu MM, Drude KP, Wright SD, editors. Career paths in telemental health. 3rd ed. Cham (CH): Springer; 1998. p. 269–275.
   Google Scholar
• Gobeille MR, Malkin AG, Jamara R, et al. Utilization and abandonment of low vision devices prescribed on a mobile clinic. Optom Vis Sci. 2018;95(9):859–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson U. Visual rehabilitation with and without educational training in the use of optical aids and residual vision. A prospective study of patients with age-related macular degeneration. Doc Ophthalmol. 1986;62(4):369–382.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nilsson UL, Nilsson SE. Rehabilitation of the visually handicapped with advanced macular degeneration. A follow-up study at the Low Vision Clinic, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Linköping. Doc Ophthalmol. 1986;62(4):345–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zammitt N, O'Hare A, Mason J, et al. Use of low vision aids by children attending a centralized multidisciplinary visual impairment service. J Vis Impair Blind. 1999;93(6):351–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copolillo A, Teitelman JL. Acquisition and integration of low vision assistive devices: understanding the decision-making process of older adults with low vision. Am J Occup Ther. 2005;59(3):305–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolasinski EM. Simulator sickness in virtual environments: technical report. Alexandria (VI): United States Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences. 1995 [cited 2018 Dec 10]. Available from: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a295861.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Agbakwu C. Introduction to and review of simulator sickness research: research report. Arlington (VA): United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 2005 [cited 2018 Dec 10]. Available from: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434495.pdf
   Google Scholar
• LaViola JJ Jr. A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. SIGCHI Bull. 2000;32(1):47–56.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb S, Nichols S, Ramsey A, et al. Virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects (VRISE). Presence (Camb). 1999;8(2):169–186.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Hart T, Kirsch N, et al. Assistive technologies for cognitive disabilities. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med. 2005;17(3):195–215.
   Google Scholar