Factors related to the use of magnifying low vision aids: a scoping review
Creators: name: Marie-Céline Lorenzini
name: Wittich, Walter
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2019
Subjects: subject: Space Science
subject: Medicine
subject: Cell Biology
subject: 69999 Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: 80699 Information Systems not elsewhere classified
subject: FOS: Computer and information sciences
subject: FOS: Computer and information sciences
subject: Cancer
subject: Science Policy
subject: 111714 Mental Health
subject: FOS: Health sciences
subject: FOS: Health sciences
subject: 110309 Infectious Diseases
subject: Computational Biology

description: <b>Background:</b> The decision process around the (non-)use of assistive technologies is multifactorial. Its determinants have previously been classified into <i>personal</i>, <i>device-related</i>, <i>environmental</i> and <i>interventional</i> categories. Whether these categories specifically apply to the use of magnifying low vision aids was explored here, using this classification. <b>Methods:</b> A scoping review (Embase, MedLine, Cochrane, ERIC ProQuest, CINAHL, NICE Evidence, Trip Database) was conducted to summarize the extent, range, and nature of research regarding the categories that are associated with low vision aid (non-)usage. A combination of key words and MeSH terms was used based upon the identified core concepts of the research question: <i>low vision</i>, <i>assistive technology</i> and <i>adherence</i>. Inter-rater reliability for the selection process was considered acceptable (kappa = 0.87). A combination of numerical and qualitative description of 21 studies was performed. <b>Results:</b> Studies report high variability rates of people possessing devices but not using them (range: 2.3–50%, M = 25%, SD = 14%). We were able to replicate the conceptual structure of the four categories that had previsouly been identified with other devices. Age, diagnosis and visual acuity demonstrated contradictory influence on optical low vision aid usage. Change in vision, appropriate environment, consistent training, patient’s motivation and awareness of low vision services, emerged as contributor factors of use. <b>Conclusion:</b> This review provides evidence that clinicians should not rely on traditionally available clinical factors to predict device use behavior. Worsening vision and low motivation appear as predictors of device nonuse and should be considered from the clinician's point of view. Education about potential facilitating factors and promotion of innovative care are strongly encouraged.Implications for rehabilitationInvestigation of the factors predicting (non-)use of magnifying low vision aids is important. These findings can help clinicians to identify patients with a higher risk of non-use of low vision aids as well as provide evidence for interventions designed to improve use.Knowledge of low vision services and types of magnifying low vision aids available to patients appears as fundamental in the process of device use and needs to be supported by more educational programs.Psychological factors predicting (non-)use of low vision aids need to be considered in the choice of rehabilitation and follow-up strategies by a multidisciplinary team, focusing more on mechanisms of adaptation and patient’s motivation.Training intensity should play a central role in the development of innovative intervention programs to reduce device abandonment. Investigation of the factors predicting (non-)use of magnifying low vision aids is important. These findings can help clinicians to identify patients with a higher risk of non-use of low vision aids as well as provide evidence for interventions designed to improve use. Knowledge of low vision services and types of magnifying low vision aids available to patients appears as fundamental in the process of device use and needs to be supported by more educational programs. Psychological factors predicting (non-)use of low vision aids need to be considered in the choice of rehabilitation and follow-up strategies by a multidisciplinary team, focusing more on mechanisms of adaptation and patient’s motivation. Training intensity should play a central role in the development of innovative intervention programs to reduce device abandonment.