Near prescribing trends in two low vision rehabilitation clinics over a ten-year period

ABSTRACT

Clinical relevance

Optical magnification (OM), electronic magnification (EM), and assistive technology (AT) can be prescribed in low vision rehabilitation (LVR) clinics for near vision goals of patients. This study shows the prescription of OM has not decreased with increased availability of EM and AT.

Background

Near visual goals are a primary concern for patients with visual impairment. LVR providers can prescribe OM, EM and/or AT to help. With the rapid evolution and availability of EM and AT, we aim to evaluate if there have been changes in the prescription patterns of clinicians with respect to OM over time. We hypothesise that the increased availability of technology may result in declining prescriptions of OM and increasing prescription of EM and AT over time.

Methods

This retrospective study investigated near prescribing between 2008–2017 for 530 new patients to the LVR clinics. Examinations were performed by optometrists specialising in low vision. Near devices prescribed included OM and EM and AT.

Results

Most patients attending the LVR clinics were female, over 60 years old and had age related macular degeneration. Near visual goals were a primary concern of 97.2% of the patients. OM was most prescribed in the 0–19 and >60-year-old age groups. Within the 20–39-year-old age group there was the greatest number of both EM and AT prescriptions. OM was most prescribed in patients with visual acuity better than 6/60. EM and AT showed a trend of increasing prescription as visual acuity decreased. EM prescription peaked in <6/60 to 6/240 category while AT trended upwards from <6/21 to no light perception and peaked in patients with no light perception. Referral rates for additional rehabilitation services were 75.7%.

Conclusions

This study shows that the prescription of OM is not declining even as the prescription and the breadth of electronic magnification and assistive technology available is expanding. OM continues to be a viable option for patients, especially in the youngest and oldest cohorts.

KEYWORDS:

• Low vision
• magnifiers
• reading
• rehabilitation
• technology

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).