Design considerations for the ideal low vision aid: insights from de-brief interviews following a real-world recording study.

Publisher: Blackwell Publishers Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 8208839 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1475-1313 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 02755408 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: 2002- : Oxford : Blackwell Publishers
Original Publication: Oxford ; New York : Pergamon Press, c1981-

Eyeglasses* ; Quality of Life* ; Visual Acuity*; Adaptation, Psychological/*physiology ; Sensory Aids/*statistics & numerical data ; Vision, Low/*rehabilitation ; Visually Impaired Persons/*rehabilitation; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Reading ; Vision, Low/physiopathology ; Visually Impaired Persons/statistics & numerical data ; Young Adult

Purpose: Low Vision Aids (LVAs) can have a transformative impact on people living with sight loss, yet the everyday requirements for developing such devices remain poorly understood and defined. This study systematically explored LVA requirements through a structured de-brief interview following a real-world self-recording study. The purpose of this work was to define the actual needs of those living with sight loss so that low vision services can better address them in future.
Methods: Thirty-two visually impaired volunteers with varying levels of previous LVA experience participated in a de-brief interview centred around a structured questionnaire. The de-brief followed a one-week real-world study during which participants used recoding spectacles to capture and narrate all situations in which they would use a 'perfect sight aid'. Content and thematic analyses were used to analyse interviews which had the purpose of contextualising these recordings and exploring requirements around psychological, functional and design factors.
Results: Participants reported that 46% of tasks which they had recorded were most important to them. Of these tasks, 82% were encountered frequently. Few tasks emerged as very important across many participants, the remaining tasks reflecting individual lifestyles or circumstances. Every participant used at least one LVA in their everyday life and 72% identified further coping strategies. Current LVAs identified as consistently poor were distance LVAs, with all other devices receiving mixed or only positive feedback. Around two-thirds of participants would prefer LVA use on an ad-hoc / quick access basis rather than over long periods of time, and just over half would prefer to carry it rather than wearing it all day. Lack of consistency in these responses illustrated potentially different user clusters with divergent design needs. Two-thirds of participants emphasised the desire for a discreet LVA that does not attract attention. However, since half of all participants felt self-conscious in public or in front of other people when wearing the small recording spectacles, this may not be technically achievable.
Conclusions: There is a substantial opportunity for new LVAs to address visual needs that traditional devices and coping strategies cannot support. Functional, psychological and design factors require careful consideration for future LVAs to be relevant and widely adopted.
(© 2021 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.)

Crossland MD & Silver JH. Thirty years in an urban low vision clinic: Changes in prescribing habits of low vision practitioners. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82: 617-622.
Silver JH. Low vision aids in the management of visual handicap. Br J Physiol Opt 1976; 31: 47.
Hooper P, Jutai JW, Strong G & Russell-Minda E. Age-related macular degeneration and low-vision rehabilitation: a systematic review. Can J Ophthalmol/J Can d’Ophtalmologie 2008; 43: 180-187.
Virgili G, Acosta R, Bentley SA, Giacomelli G, Allcock C & Evans JR. Reading aids for adults with low vision. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 4: CD003303.
Binns AM, Bunce C, Dickinson C et al. How effective is low vision service provision? A Systematic Review. Surv Ophthalmol 2012; 57: 34-65.
Peterson RC, Wolffsohn JS, Rubinstein M & Lowe J. Benefits of electronic vision enhancement systems (EVES) for the visually impaired. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 136: 1129-1135.
Ehrlich JR, Ojeda LV, Wicker D et al. Head-mounted display technology for low-vision rehabilitation and vision enhancement. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017; 176: 26-32.
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: 694-703.
Martiniello N, Eisenbarth W, Lehane C, Johnson A & Wittich W. Exploring the use of smartphones and tablets among people with visual impairments: Are mainstream devices replacing the use of traditional visual aids? Assistive Technol 2019; 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2019.1682084. Published online November 7.
Crossland MD, S. Silva R & Macedo AF. Smartphone, tablet computer and e-reader use by people with vision impairment. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2014; 34: 552-557.
Crossland MD, Starke SD, Imielski P, Wolffsohn JS & Webster AR. Benefit of an electronic head-mounted low vision aid. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2019; 39: 422-431.
Zhao Y, Szpiro S & Azenkot S. ForeSee. In: Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility - ASSETS ’15. ACM Press; 2015:239-249.
Martin-Gonzalez A, Kotliar K, Rios-Martinez J, Lanzl I & Navab N. Mediated-reality magnification for macular degeneration rehabilitation. J Mod Opt 2014; 61: 1400-1408.
Al-Atabany WI, Tong T & Degenaar PA. Improved content aware scene retargeting for retinitis pigmentosa patients. Biomed Eng Online 2010; 9: 52.
Culham LE, Chabra A & Rubin GS. Clinical performance of electronic, head-mounted, low-vision devices. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004; 24: 281-290.
Ikeda Y, Suzuki E, Kuramata T et al. Development and evaluation of a visual aid using see-through display for patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2015; 59: 43-47.
Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH et al. Visual disability variables. I: the importance and difficulty of activity goals for a sample of low-vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 946-953.
Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH et al. Visual disability variables. II: The difficulty of tasks for a sample of low-vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 954-967.
Massof RW, Ahmadian L, Grover LL et al. The Activity Inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire. Optom Vis Sci Off Publ Am Acad Optom 2007; 84: 763.
Massof RW & Rubin GS. Visual function assessment questionnaires. Surv Ophthalmol 2001; 45: 531-548.
Harper R, Doorduyn K, Reeves B & Slater L. Evaluating the outcomes of low vision rehabilitation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999; 19: 3-11.
Bray N, Brand A, Taylor J, Hoare Z, Dickinson C & Edwards RT. Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial. Acta Ophthalmol 2017; 95: e415-e423.
Leat SJ & Karadsheh S. Use and non-use of low vision aids by visually impaired children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1991; 11: 10-15.
Lorenzini M-C & Wittich W. Factors related to the use of magnifying low vision aids: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil. Published online May 23, 2020; 42: 3525-3537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1593519.
Gobeille MR, Malkin AG, Jamara R & Ross NC. Utilization and abandonment of low vision devices prescribed on a mobile clinic. Optom Vis Sci 2018; 95: 859-864.
Story MF. Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assist Technol 1998; 10: 4-12.
Starke SD, Golubova E, Crossland MD & Wolffsohn JS. Everyday visual demands of people with low vision: A mixed methods real-life recording study. J Vis 2020; 20: 3.
Leat SJ, Legge GE & Bullimore MA. What is low vision. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76: 198-211.
WHO. Priority Eye Diseases - Refractive Errors and Low Vision. Published 2020. https://www.who.int/blindness/causes/priority/en/index4.html.
WHO. World report on vision. Published 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/world-report-on-vision.
Slade J & Edwards R. My Voice 2015: The views and experiences of blind and partially sighted people in the UK. RNIB. Published online 2015: https://www.rnib.org.uk/sites/default/files/My%20V.
Taylor DJ, Hobby AE, Binns AM & Crabb DP. How does age-related macular degeneration affect real-world visual ability and quality of life? A systematic review. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e011504.
Turano KA, Geruschat DR, Stahl JW & Massof RW. Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 865-877.
Alma MA, van der Mei SF, Melis-Dankers BJM, van Tilburg TG, Groothoff JW & Suurmeijer TPBM. Participation of the elderly after vision loss. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33: 63-72.
Haymes SA, Johnston AW & Heyes AD. Relationship between vision impairment and ability to perform activities of daily living. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002; 22: 79-91.
Keller BK, Morton JL, Thomas VS & Potter JF. The effect of visual and hearing impairments on functional status. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 1319-1325.
Lamoureux EL, Hassell JB & Keeffe JE. The determinants of participation in activities of daily living in people with impaired vision. Am J Ophthalmol 2004; 137: 265-270.
Latham K, Baranian M, Timmis MA & Pardhan S. Difficulties with goals of the Dutch ICF activity inventory: perceptions of those with retinitis pigmentosa and of those who support them. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 2381-2391.
Chan IM, Friedman GR, Ho PC & Tolentino FI. Low-vision aids for patients with suboptimal vision after closed vitrectomy for diabetic vitreous hemorrhage. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 458-460.
Alma MA, Van der Mei SF, Groothoff JW & Suurmeijer TPBM. Determinants of social participation of visually impaired older adults. Qual Life Res 2012; 21: 87-97.
Ye H, Malu M, Oh U & Findlater L.Current and future mobile and wearable device use by people with visual impairments. Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst - CHI ’14. Published online 2014: 3123-3132. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557085.
Sandnes FE.What do low-vision users really want from smart glasses? Faces, text and perhaps no glasses at all. In: Computers Helping People with Special Needs. ICCHP 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 9758. Vol 9758.; 2016: 187-194.
Peláez-Coca MD, Vargas-Martín F, Mota S, Díaz J & Ros-Vidal E. A versatile optoelectronic aid for low vision patients. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009; 29: 565-572.
Hwang AD & Peli E. An augmented-reality edge enhancement application for Google glass. Optom Vis Sci 2014; 91: 1021-1030.
Tanuwidjaja E, Huynh D, Koa Ket al.Chroma. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing - UbiComp ’14 Adjunct. ACM Press; 2014: 799-810.
Culham LE, Chabra A & Rubin GS. Users’ subjective evaluation of electronic vision enhancement systems. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009; 29: 138-149.
Bowers AR, Luo G, Rensing NM & Peli E. Evaluation of a prototype Minified Augmented-View device for patients with impaired night vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004; 24: 296-312.
Vargas-Martín F & Peli E. Augmented-view for restricted visual field: multiple device implementations. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 715-723.
McKee MM, Choi H, Wilson S, DeJonckheere MJ, Zazove P & Levy H. Determinants of hearing aid use among older americans with hearing loss. Gerontologist 2019; 59: 1171-1181.
Asghar S, Edward Torrens G, Iftikhar H, Welsh R & Harland R. The influence of social context on the perception of assistive technology: using a semantic differential scale to compare young adults’ views from the United Kingdom and Pakistan. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2020; 15: 563-576.
Hogan CL. Stigma, embarrassment and the use of mobility aids. Int J Orientat Mobil 2012; 5: 49-52.
Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R & Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 1996; 8: 3-13.
Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R & Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil 2002; 14: 101-105.

Date Created: 20210203 Date Completed: 20211129 Latest Revision: 20211129

20231215

10.1111/opo.12778

33533098