Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Environmental and behavioural interventions for reducing physical activity limitation in community-dwelling visually impaired older people

  1. Dawn A Skelton1,*,
  2. Tracey E Howe2,
  3. Claire Ballinger3,
  4. Fiona Neil4,
  5. Shelagh Palmer5,
  6. Lyle Gray6

Editorial Group: Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group

Published Online: 5 JUN 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 9 NOV 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009233.pub2


How to Cite

Skelton DA, Howe TE, Ballinger C, Neil F, Palmer S, Gray L. Environmental and behavioural interventions for reducing physical activity limitation in community-dwelling visually impaired older people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD009233. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009233.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Glasgow Caledonian University, School of Health & Life Sciences, Institute of Allied Health Research, Glasgow, UK

  2. 2

    Glasgow City of Science, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

  3. 3

    Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Research Design Service South Central, Southampton, UK

  4. 4

    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS, Community Falls Prevention Programme, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

  5. 5

    Visibility, Glasgow, UK

  6. 6

    Glasgow Caledonian University, Life Sceince, Glasgow, UK

*Dawn A Skelton, School of Health & Life Sciences, Institute of Allied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Rd, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK. dawn.skelton@gcu.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 5 JUN 2013

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

The prevalence of visual impairment is estimated by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be 161 million worldwide (Resnikoff 2008). One in eight people in the UK over the age of 75 and one in three over the age of 90 live with significant sight loss (Evans 2002). Older adults with visual impairment are more likely to be physically dependent, have poorer quality of life and are more likely to move into residential settings than their sighted peers (Ivers 1998; Klein 2003; Tinetti 1998). Impairment of vision is associated with a loss of function in activities of daily living (Brouwer 2008; Salive 1994). A UK report by Visibility (Campbell 2005a) found that older people with visual impairment are more likely to avoid activity due to their visual impairment. Anxiety and depression, leading to reduced activity, is common in those with visual impairment (Evans 2007). There is an association between vision and various health conditions and activity limitations among older people. These include decreases in leisure activities, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) performance and social function, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and compromised mobility. The International Classification of Functioning (ICF) defines activity as "the nature and extent of performance of a function by a person" and activity limitations as "problems of the performance of activities in nature, duration, and quality" (WHO 2001). The daily problems in seeking leisure activities by older adults with low vision may have implications for other health problems. Many older adults are not engaging in activities for which they may have sufficient vision due to factors unrelated to medical care. Inactivity and a lack of social connections should be noted by ophthalmologists and others treating the older population (Berger 2012). Challenging environments, struggling to obtain transportation, feelings of vulnerability, having decreased energy, and lacking assertiveness were all identified in interviews with older visually impaired adults as reasons for not being physically active and not feeling competent in such activities (Berger 2012).

Visual impairment is also associated with increases in the incidence of hip fractures, depression and falls (Crews 2004). Avoidance of physical activity due to fear of falling is common among older people at risk of falling (Yardley 2002). Indeed, the rate of falls in older people with visual impairment is 1.7 times higher, and hip fractures are 1.3 to 1.9 times higher than in age-matched visually normal populations (Legood 2002). One study reported that activity restriction was present in 45% of those with visual impairment, compared with only 24% in those without visual impairment who had experienced an injurious fall (Murphy 2002). Those with visual impairment were also more likely to admit to fear of falling (44%) even without a fall history. One study has shown that perceived interference of vision loss on goal-directed behaviour and expected activities has greater influence on distress and is subsequently predictive of disability in comparison with objective symptoms (visual acuity) (Dreer 2008). It therefore seems likely that the mechanism underpinning previous trials of maintaining mobility and physical activity, particularly with respect to environmental components, behavioural components or both, for people with visual impairment will be different from the general population. 

 

Description of the condition

Visual impairment is defined as best-corrected visual acuity of the better eye less than 0.3 logMAR (Log of the Minimum Angle of Resolution) units or visual field defects within 30 degrees of fixation. Blindness is defined as visual acuity less than 0.05 logMAR units or visual field defects within 10 degrees of fixation (WHO 1992). A working definition of visual impairment is low vision that cannot be corrected by standard glasses or by medical or surgical intervention. The top five conditions leading to visual impairment and blindness in the UK are age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, myopic degeneration and optic atrophy (Evans 2004). Age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy are the most common causes of blindness in those over 65 years of age (Bamashmus 2004; Resnikoff 2004).

 

Description of the intervention

Environmental interventions include any targeted, intentional improvement to the (usually indoor) physical environment, with the aim of reducing symptoms or improving wellbeing (Preedy 2009). In the case of visual impairment, this may incorporate adaptations and modifications to an individual’s physical environment (usually their home) as the result of a formal environmental assessment that identified potential hazards or restrictions. The aim of the environmental intervention is to enhance the individual’s ability to perform daily living tasks safely and independently, facilitating their safe mobility and improving confidence. Examples for an individual with visual impairment include the removal of a rug, increased lighting in hallways and contrasting stripes on stairs.

Behavioural interventions include the systematic implementation of procedures that result in lasting positive changes in an individual's behaviour (Markowitz 2006a). 'Behavioural intervention' means the design, implementation, and evaluation of individual or group instructional and environmental modifications, including programmes of behavioural instruction, to produce significant improvement in human behaviour through skill acquisition and the reduction of problematic behaviour. These interventions, for people with visual impairment, might include, but are not restricted to, the teaching of adaptive strategies to enhance changes in an individual's behaviour when negotiating and interacting with their environment (Markowitz 2006b) and orientation and mobility (O&M) training (Virgili 2003). O&M training aims to teach the visually impaired person how to ambulate and negotiate the environment safely and independently and may contribute to reduced activity limitations and societal participation (Zijlstra 2009).

Occupational therapists, as a profession, have the expertise to assess, devise and implement rehabilitation plans which incorporate both types of interventions: an occupational therapy approach encompasses both environmental change and the interaction of the individual with their environment, their actions and their behavioural adaptations at home and in the community. This dynamic relationship between the person, their behaviour and the environment has been described elsewhere (Clemson 2003; Markowitz 2006b). Many environmental risk assessments, and some environmental modifications, are undertaken by other professionals but the relationship of the person, their behaviour and their environment may not be evaluated comprehensively.

 

How the intervention might work

Through changes in the home environment and behavioural strategies to negotiate the environment, the person with visual impairment may feel more confident that they can negotiate their environment safely, thereby reducing concerns about their safety and fear of falling. This should lead to greater mobility and habitual physical activity. This could be the mechanism behind previous trials that have shown reductions in falls in those with visual impairment following environmental and behavioural interventions (e.g. Campbell 2005b: La Grow 2006). Presentation of the information is also considered important and to be effective must be in collaboration with the person with visual impairment, in a problem-solving rather than prescriptive manner, to allow them ownership of the information and advice and to feel that it fits their abilities and preferences (Clemson 2008).

 

Why it is important to do this review

To date, no published literature review has been identified which specifically considers the effectiveness of environmental or behavioural interventions in reducing physical activity limitation among older people with visual impairment. The physiological, psychological, functional and societal benefits of regular physical activity amongst older people (WHO 2007) are irrefutable, and interventions that improve habitual physical activity in visually impaired older people are vital to promote public health. Trials which have adopted a holistic, participant-centred approach to environment modification (i.e. the consideration of the person within the context of the environment and their functional activities/demands) have shown reductions in falls both within and outside the home (Campbell 2005b; La Grow 2006), whereas trials that have considered removal of home hazards only (Stevens 2001) did not reduce the incidence of falls, even within the home. One potential mechanism for falls reduction could be that the visually impaired person actually restricts their activity more as a result of the intervention, which in the short term could reduce their exposure to falls risk (La Grow 2006). There is therefore a need to further unpick the mechanism of reduction in falls in visually impaired older people (La Grow 2006). Although interventions such as those aimed at reducing falls may work by increasing mobility and activity, they may also do the opposite. In one intervention, those allocated to exercise-only interventions, which had previously been shown to reduce falls in older people, had no reduction in their risk of falls (La Grow 2006). A sub-analysis of those who were compliant (performed the strength and balance exercises and walking programme) did show a reduction in risk. The authors hypothesised that visually impaired older people who engage in more activity reduce their risk, but those that avoid activity do not (La Grow 2006). Physical activity is known to have a U-shaped relationship to falls with those least and those most active more likely to fall (Gregg 2000). Trials rarely consider activity restriction or physical activity alongside falls as an outcome measure, so the mechanism remains unclear.

Although there is a previous systematic review of the effect of interventions to reduce falls in older adults (Gillespie 2012), there is no specific review in those with visual impairment. The rate of falls and injury is greater in older people with visual impairment than visually unimpaired older people (Legood 2002) and avoidance of activity is not uncommon in those with poor vision (Campbell 2005a). A previous systematic review on orientation interventions to improve mobility in people with visual impairment (Virgili 2003) considered performance in travel activities of daily life but not more generalised physical activity or activity restriction. Although there is some potential overlap in terms of secondary outcomes (quality of life and people’s perceptions of the effects of orientation interventions on their lives), this review included participants aged 16 and over, not older adults (aged 60 or over) with visual impairment. An ongoing Cochrane review (Langelaan 2007) considers multidisciplinary and monodisciplinary rehabilitation on generic health-related and vision-related quality of life. This review includes participants’ perception of the effect of rehabilitation on activities in daily living and on participation in society, so again there is potential overlap. However, the review includes participants aged 18 and over, not specifically older adults (aged 60 or over). 

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of environmental and behavioural interventions in reducing activity limitation and improving quality of life amongst visually impaired older people.

The following potential implications were also addressed in this review.

  • Do the interventions reduce activity restriction and increase physical activity and mobility in older people with visual impairment? What quality of life effects are there?
  • Do the interventions have the same effect in young-old and old-old, fallers and non-fallers, or those with different severity of visual impairment?
  • Do the mix and intensity of the interventions affect the outcome?
  • Do the interventions have different effects in different residential settings?
  • Does the training of the person delivering the interventions affect the outcome?

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (Q-RCTs) that compared environmental interventions, behavioural interventions or both, versus control (placebo control or no intervention or usual care), and trials comparing different types of environmental or behavioural interventions. We did not include single studies that report only quality of life (as opposed to limitations in mobility and quality of life) so as to avoid overlap with another ongoing Cochrane review (Langelaan 2007).

 

Types of participants

We aimed to include trials with the following participants:

  • Older people (aged 60 and over) with irreversible visual impairment including, but not limited to, low visual acuity, poor contrast sensitivity, poor depth perception and reduced visual field.
  • Older people with irreversible visual impairment and other multiple disabilities, such as hearing loss, neurological or musculoskeletal disease or cognitive impairments. 
  • Older people living independently and those living in residential settings.

 

Types of interventions

Environmental interventions, behavioural interventions or both, including but not limited to visual rehabilitation (e.g. low vision devices), removal of home hazards, home safety modifications, provision of adaptive or assistive equipment, advice on behavioural changes to improve safety in activities of daily living (IADL and ADL), cognitive behavioural therapies, or other behavioural therapies aimed at changing behaviour.

For any study included, we aimed to record the professional training of the person delivering the interventions. The types of interventions would also be rated on the intensity of the intervention, based on previously published criteria (evaluation of risk of person and environment; validated assessment tools; formal or observational evaluation of functional capacity; and adequate follow-up) (Clemson 2008).

We did not include other vision-correction interventions (e.g. cataract surgery, corrective lenses or filters) in this review.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

To be eligible for inclusion the primary aim of the study was to reduce physical activity limitation and needed to include a measure of physical activity which might include the following:

  • Continuous objective measures e.g. body fixed sensor activity monitoring.
  • Continuous subjective self report measures e.g. validated questionnaires such as Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE), Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS).
  • Other self-reporting measures may be dichotomous e.g. single questions on physical activity.

 

Secondary outcomes

  • Falls (rate (or number) of falls or number of fallers) and fall-related injuries. Prospective daily calendars returned monthly for at least one year is the preferred method for recording falls (Lamb 2005).
  • Fear of falling (e.g. scales such as FES-I, ABC, FES, MFES, FHI, SAFFE and Single Item 1-4).
  • Quality of life (e.g. Euroquol, SF12, SF36, WHOQoL or any other validated means of recording subjective QOL).
  • Attitudes, beliefs and behaviours (e.g. AFRIS, OEE, SEE, FaB). The latter may also be ascertained via qualitative methods such as focus groups and interviews.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2012, Issue 10, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com (accessed 9 November 2012), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to November 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2012), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to November 2012), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (January 1985 to November 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 November 2012.

We found that searches in PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), Sociological Abstracts (SocioFILE), Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, did not yield any additional papers and we were unable to choose specific criteria to search for our inclusion criteria so it was decided that the databases searched above would give sufficient coverage. There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.

See: Appendices for details of search strategies for CENTRAL (Appendix 1), MEDLINE (Appendix 2), EMBASE (Appendix 3), CINAHL (Appendix 4), AMED (Appendix 5), OTseeker (Appendix 6), mRCT (Appendix 7),ClinicalTrials.gov (Appendix 8) and the ICTRP (Appendix 9).

 

Searching other resources

We contacted authors of any ongoing trials or abstracts found and searched the reference lists of full papers reviewed, as identified in our electronic search.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Two review authors (DS and CB), working independently, screened all titles and abstracts generated by the searches for potentially relevant studies. We based the decision as to whether to include studies on the following criteria: the type of study; type of participants; type of intervention and type of outcome measurements. Two review authors (DS and TH) assessed the full-text articles of the selected titles and abstracts for eligibility according to the 'Criteria for considering studies for this review' outlined above. We resolved disagreements by consensus. In one instance (where an abstract only was found) we sought additional information from the author; however, the full paper had not been published and the study did not meet the inclusion criteria.

 

Data extraction and management

We planned that when a study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, data concerning methodological issues, characteristics of participants, interventions and outcome measures would be independently extracted using a standard extraction form and the review authors would not be masked to the study’s authors, institutions or journal of publication. Where available and appropriate, we would have presented quantitative data for the outcomes listed in the inclusion criteria in the analyses. Where studies report standard errors of the means (SEMs), we would obtain standard deviations (SDs) by multiplying SEMs by the square-root of the sample size. We would have attempted to contact authors of studies where there was inadequate reporting of data to enable clarification and where appropriate, to allow pooling.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We planned, if there were included RCTs, for two review authors to independently assess risk of bias in included studies using the methodology described in Chapter 8 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). The studies would have been assessed on the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking (blinding) of participants and personnel, masking of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and other sources of bias. Due to the nature of this intervention it is not possible to mask participants or staff providing the intervention. It is however possible to mask outcome assessors for objective measurements. Authors’ assessments were to be 'High risk of bias', 'Low risk of bias' or 'Unclear risk of bias'.

 

Measures of treatment effect

For each trial, we would have calculated a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes (reporting mean and SD or SEM). We would have calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CIs when combining results from studies using different ways of measuring the same concept. We would have reported change scores separately as these cannot be incorporated into meta-analyses of SMDs. Where appropriate, we would have pooled results of comparable groups of trials using the fixed-effect model and would have calculated the 95% CIs.

 

Unit of analysis issues

We planned to report the level at which randomisation occurred in the included studies as specified in Chapter 9 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Deeks 2011). Possible variations in study designs include cluster-randomised trials, cross-over trials, multiple treatments and multiple intervention groups. We would not have applied thresholds for eligibility (e.g. outcomes masked to allocation or minimum follow-up period) but would have reported details of the studies which may have affected interpretation of the data (e.g. short duration of intervention).

 

Dealing with missing data

If missing data were discovered during data extraction, we planned to contact the original investigators of the study to request the required information. It might also have been necessary to conduct a sensitivity analysis if assumptions had been made (Deeks 2011). We planned to describe the potential effect of missing data upon conclusions drawn from this review.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We would have tested heterogeneity between comparable trials after due consideration of the value of I²; a value greater than 50% may indicate substantial heterogeneity (Higgins 2003). We would also have considered methodological and clinical heterogeneity. In the presence of heterogeneity, depending on the number of studies and the direction of effect, we would have pooled the results of comparable groups of trials using the random-effects model and would have calculated the 95% CIs or have considered the subgroup analyses described later.

 

Assessment of reporting biases

We would have tested publication bias using funnel plots or other corrective analytical methods, provided there was a sufficient number of trials included in the systematic review. We would have reviewed and discussed open and uncontrolled studies to identify reporting bias.

 

Data synthesis

Where appropriate, we would have pooled results of comparable groups of studies using the fixed-effect model and calculated 95% CIs. In the presence of heterogeneity, we would have pooled the results of comparable groups of trials using the random-effects model and calculated 95% CIs. In the case of methodological (including unit of analysis issues) or clinical heterogeneity, we would have undertaken sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of these studies on the results.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

The review authors planned to consider the following hypotheses using subgroup analysis if sufficient data were available:

  1. Behavioural interventions delivered in tandem with environmental interventions are more effective than either behavioural or environmental interventions delivered on their own.
  2. Interventions are equally effective on differing severities of visual impairment.
  3. Interventions are equally effective with fallers as they are with the general older population (inclusion criteria at point of recruitment into the study).

 

Sensitivity analysis

We planned to undertake sensitivity analyses, where indicated, to investigate the effects of methodological quality. For example, if appropriate, we would have looked at the effect of excluding quasi-randomised trials, as they will be at higher risk of bias. Many issues suitable for sensitivity analysis are only identified during the review process where the individual peculiarities of the studies under investigation are identified. As no studies have been identified for inclusion in this review, we are unable to undertake such analyses.

 

Grading of evidence and summary of findings table

We planned to present major outcomes (including benefits and adverse events) in a 'Summary of findings' table, which provides information on the quality of evidence and the magnitude of the intervention effect, as well as a summary of the main outcome data as described in Chapter 11 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Schünemann 2011). We would also have presented an assessment of the overall quality of evidence per outcome (high, moderate, low and very low) using the GRADE approach (Schünemann 2011). We also planned to review the cost of treatment in the included studies and other publications.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
 

Description of studies

 

Results of the search

The electronic searches yielded a total of 6014 references from electronic databases and two records from screening the citations from potentially relevant references. One ongoing study was known to the authors but not found in the searches of the included databases (UKCRN ID 10883). The Trials Search Co-ordinator scanned the search results, removed duplicates and trial protocols, and removed 4330 references which were not relevant to the scope of the review. The authors screened the remaining 780 published reports to identify potentially relevant studies. We obtained full-text copies of 30 studies for further investigation. After reading the full-text record we excluded all the studies. See Figure 1.

 FigureFigure 1. Results from searching for studies for inclusion in the review.

Three of the trials identified on the clinicaltrials.gov website may be of interest to a future update of this review. The first aims to demonstrate how specified physical and emotional outcomes of persons with low vision change across time, with an RCT of a sham versus a problem-solving intervention. We await the publication of this trial (recruitment due to end Oct 2011) (NCT00545220). The second trial has an intervention where a low vision occupational therapist collaborates with a low vision optometrist to develop and implement a care plan based on a person's vision status, rehabilitation potential, and personal rehabilitation goals - but outcome measures only targeted vision function and vision-related quality of life. We await the publication of this trial (recruitment due to end July 2012) (NCT00769015), to see if there are any outcomes of interest within vision-related quality of life. Finally, a study in the Netherlands which has relevant outcome measures (Zijlstra 2009) is ongoing. See Characteristics of ongoing studies.

Although removed at the screening stage, two other ongoing studies were identified in the searches. One Australian study (published protocol) is considering the effects of a low vision programme on 'positive and active engagement with life' (ACTRN12607000399493). The other study was identified through contacts of the authors. Based in the UK (UKCRN ID 10883), this pilot (RCT) study, VIP2UK, aims to promote adherence to an occupational therapy and exercise intervention to reduce falls in older people with visual impairment. See Characteristics of ongoing studies.

 

Included studies

No studies met the criteria for this review (see Figure 1).

 

Excluded studies

From the reports, we selected 30 studies for review in full text, but excluded all of them. Eight studies were not behavioural or environmental interventions aimed at increasing activity or reducing activity restriction; instead they were visual field training (Balliet 1985); residual vision training (Conrod 1986); feature search task (computerised vision training) (Kuyk 2010); perceptual learning (paper-based) (Overbury 1996); use of microscopes to extend reading time (Scanlan 2004); eccentric viewing computerised intervention (Vukicevic 2009); educational programme to improve self care, food preparation, home and financial management (Smith 2009). One study was aimed at improving skills at requesting on-the-job accommodations from employers and therefore had very few participants in the eligible age range (Rumrill 1999).

Of those interventions that were eligible (included an environmental or behavioural component), four were not RCTs (Gutman 2002; Kuyk 2008; La Grow 2004; McCabe 2000) and had no activity outcomes. One other was not an RCT but potentially had a physical activity outcome of interest but this was a single question on moderation of physical activity, questions on walking in and out of the home and use of transport (Engel 2000). The study was not controlled, did not report standard deviations (SDs) so as to assess effect size and had considerable drop out (Engel 2000). One other was not an RCT, but rather an implementation paper (how to implement the intervention) based on Campbell 2005b (La Grow 2006). Two were abstracts which were actually the protocols for studies (Stelmack 2005; West 2004) and had no activity outcomes. Fourteen did not have any outcome measures of interest in this review (e.g. physical activity/activity restriction). Instead these studies had outcome measures such as falls and injuries (Campbell 2005b; Cumming 2007; Day 2002); perceived security in the performance of daily occupations (Dahlin-Ivanoff 2002); participation in daily activities (as opposed to physical activity) (Girdler 2010); reading skills (Stelmack 2008a; Stelmack 2008b; Stelmack 2008c); improve quality of life (Reeves 2004) or wellbeing (Pankow 2004); improved physical function (Deremeik 2007; Pankow 2004); associations between assistive devices and activities of daily living (Eklund 2007); dependence in activities of daily living (Eklund 2008; Reeves 2004); and balance (Cheung 2008). Although Cheung 2008 also had as an aim to increase confidence in safe ambulation, this was not assessed as an outcome.

All trials which considered environmental or behavioural interventions were with older people living in the community, except the SEEING trial (Deremeik 2007) and West 2004, which were based in nursing homes.

 

Risk of bias in included studies

There were no studies included in this review.

 

Effects of interventions

Our searches produced no RCTs or quasi-RCTs of behavioural or environmental interventions to reduce activity restriction and improve quality of life in older people with vision impairment that met our eligibility criteria.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

Although this could be considered an ‘empty review’, there is value in publishing a review without includable studies, as it indicates the state of research evidence at a particular point in time and highlights major research gaps (Lang 2007). There is value in such reviews in informing clinicians, consumers, and other decision makers in health care when there is lack of robust evidence for or against a healthcare intervention (Green 2007).

It is important to note that, although we reviewed 14 RCTs of environmental and behavioural interventions in older people with visually impairment, none of these had an outcome measure that gauged their effectiveness on physical activity or physical activity restriction. Some studies included outcome measures of participation in daily activities (as opposed to physical activity) (Girdler 2010); perceived security in performing occupations (Dahlin-Ivanoff 2002); associations between assistive devices and activities of daily living (Eklund 2007); or dependence in activities of daily living (Eklund 2008; Reeves 2004), which perhaps are markers or would be associated with activity restriction, but were not listed in our a priori outcome measures. All of these studies included occupational therapists or vision rehabilitation officers as the professionals delivering the intervention. Quality of life (Girdler 2010; Reeves 2004), wellbeing (Pankow 2004) or improvements in physical function (Deremeik 2007; Pankow 2004) were the other outcome measures of interest. One suite of studies concentrated on reading skills (Stelmack 2008a; Stelmack 2008b; Stelmack 2008c). Other studies assessed the interventions' effectiveness on balance (Cheung 2008) or falls and injuries (Campbell 2005b; Cumming 2007; Day 2002). However, it is not possible to know if a reduction in falls risk is due to the participants' reduced activity (so reducing their exposure to risk) or their becoming better able to cope with their environment. It would have been useful to have assessed whether falls per unit of activity (or exposure) were reduced in these studies as per the guidelines of ProFaNE (Lamb 2005). Interestingly, Reeves 2004 showed no positive benefit of their intervention on quality of life and concluded that researchers should be aware that, in people with macular degeneration at least, the determinants of quality of life may revolve more around lost sources of pleasure and relaxation (e.g. playing with grandchildren or reading) than in their ability to perform essential activities in a constrained way. In other words, the value of reducing activity restriction is important to patients.

A recent systematic review (Binns 2012) reminds researchers that outcome measures chosen to determine the effectiveness of low vision services should reflect capacity within daily activities, within the home environment, rather than just on clinical outcomes. These reviewers, although including non-RCTs, only found seven trials, and whilst they felt able to confirm that rehabilitation services result in improved clinical and functional outcomes, they commented that the number of studies meeting their inclusion criteria was ‘pitifully small’. There is growing interest in physical activity in those living with low vision as reflected by a recent study considering the accuracy and validity of talking pedometers to measure activity in people with visual impairment (Holbrook 2011). Trials which consider both subjective and objective physical activity and activity restriction are necessary to see if interventions can make a difference to habitual physical activity.

However, we did find one ongoing RCT which is assessing orientation and mobility (O&M) training in older people with low vision and has activity restriction as an outcome measure (Zijlstra 2009). We also await an ongoing pilot RCT (UKCRN ID 10883) of increasing adherence to an occupational therapy-delivered home safety and modification programme and an occupational therapist-delivered home exercise programme, with physical activity as a core outcome measure. We also await with interest the publication of results from an Australian study which is considering the effects of a low vision programme on 'positive and active engagement with life' (ACTRN12607000399493), and two American studies where it is unclear whether the outcome measures will meet our criteria (NCT00769015; NCT00545220). See 'Characteristics of ongoing studies'.

Of final note is the concern that interventions are rarely described in detail, nor do they provide information on the most appropriate participant groups or types of visual impairment with which they are most effective. It is important to customise interventions to suit particular individuals and their needs and preferences. A 'black box' of multiple interventions makes it difficult to pull out the effectiveness of differing parts of the interventions (e.g. a mix of environmental and behavioural interventions may make it difficult to disentangle which type of intervention is more appropriate for which participant group).

 

Summary of main results

Our searches produced no RCTs or quasi-RCTs of behavioural or environmental interventions to reduce activity restriction and improve quality of life in older people with vision impairment that met our eligibility criteria.

 

Potential biases in the review process

We attempted to minimise bias by two review authors independently reviewing the titles and abstracts. We did not restrict the articles to English only so we should have minimised publication bias. It is possible that our search terms were not broad enough, or were restrictive. However all studies that the authors were aware of were picked up in the searches. The search for this review was completed in November 2012. It is possible that relevant studies have been published in the interim period to publication but to counter this, we will update the review bi-annually. We deliberately did not narrow our population group and included both community-dwelling and care home/residential older adults so we do not feel that we were too narrow in our approach to the population group. It is possible that we were too precise in our interventions by excluding, for example, computerised visual field or eccentric view training but the focus of this review was to consider modifications to the home environment, and coping and enabling strategies to negotiate safely in and out of the home. We excluded one study which considered perceived security in performing occupational activities and it could be countered that this would reflect activity restriction, but this was not set a priori in the protocol. As no studies met the selection criteria we can only comment that there is so far no evidence of effect.

 

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

The Cochrane review Virgili 2003 considered the effectiveness of O&M training in adults with low vision. The review included two small trials comparing O&M training to physical exercise, which provided weak evidence. O&M training had no effect in one study while it was found to be beneficial in the second. There is therefore little evidence on which type of O&M training is better for people with low vision who have specific characteristics and needs.

Work commissioned by the Thomas Pocklington Trust (Ballinger 2009) aimed to carry out a qualitative evidence synthesis of qualitative research exploring the views and experiences of older people with visual impairment on participation in falls prevention initiatives. Although no studies were found which explicitly sought to explore the views of older visually impaired people per se, three studies were included as all had relevant data which could be considered, although the potential for synthesis was limited. The single theme extending across all three studies was the capacity and desire for autonomous decision-making around environmental modification by older people with visual impairment, informed by but not dependent on the recommendations of others such as health professionals. Other themes elicited from one or two studies included: the influence of function, ambiance, safety, cleanliness and use of cues in decision-making about environmental modification.

Although there is a previous systematic review of the effect of interventions to reduce falls in older adults (Gillespie 2012), there is no specific review of those with visual impairment. However, Gillespie 2012 did show that home safety interventions were more effective in reducing rate of falls in the higher risk subgroup of older people. They also found that there was some evidence that occupational therapy-led interventions on home safety assessment were more effective than non-occupational therapy-led interventions for reducing rate of falls.

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

We are unable to reach any conclusion as to the evidence behind the effectiveness of environmental or behavioural interventions for reducing physical activity limitation in community-dwelling visually impaired older people, as no eligible studies were found. However, the fact that we have been unable to show a lack of evidence of effect does not mean there is no effect, merely that there are no eligible studies addressing this issue.

A number of studies reviewed included only the secondary outcome measures of this review. Although behavioural interventions delivered by occupational therapists have been shown to reduce the rate of falls, we are unable to conclude if this is due to reduced activity restriction (increased mobility) or reduced activity (lessening exposure to risk). There are inconclusive and conflicting results arising from the evaluation of behavioural and environmental interventions aimed at improving quality of life. This is perhaps because many intervention studies have not focused on coping strategies to engage with leisure activities and have instead focused on essential activities of daily living.

As restricted activity can lead to declining mobility, to distress and anxiety, and to an increased risk of falls, healthcare professionals need to consider ways to facilitate people to increase physical activity and help remove the barriers to activity in older people with visual impairment.

 
Implications for research

There is a gap in knowledge concerning the effectiveness of behavioural and environmental interventions in reducing activity restriction and improving quality of life in older people with irreversible vision loss. Further research, such as ongoing Dutch, Australian and UK trials, considering the effectiveness of orientation and mobility training on activity restriction, physical activity, falls, fear of falling and quality of life in older adults with low vision, are necessary before any conclusions can be reached.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

The review authors would like to acknowledge the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (CEVG), in particular, Anupa Shah for her patience and detailed help, and Iris Gordon, Trials Search Co-ordinator, for compiling the search strategy and searches and to Marion Kelt (Librarian, Glasgow Caledonian University) for her help in local searches. They would like to thank the Thomas Pocklington Trust for part funding the review and Dr Senay Aydin for help in retrieving the papers for review by the authors. Finally, they would like to thank Gianni Virgili (author of the Orientation and mobility training for adults with low vision Cochrane Review) and Maaike Langelaan (author of the Multidisciplinary rehabilitation and monodisciplinary rehabilitation for visually impaired adults Cochrane Review) for help in ensuring our review protocol was complementary to theirs, and Catey Bunce and Giovanni Sato for their comments on the protocol for this review, and Jennifer Evans and Giavanni Giacomelli for their comments on the full review.

Richard Wormald (Co-ordinating Editor for CEVG) acknowledges financial support for his CEVG research sessions from the Department of Health through the award made by the National Institute for Health Research to Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology for a Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

This review has no analyses.

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
 

Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy

#1 MeSH descriptor Vision Disorders
#2 MeSH descriptor Visually Impaired Persons
#3 (low* or handicap* or subnormal* or impair* or partial* or disab*) near/3 (vision or visual* or sight*)
#4 (#1 OR #2 OR #3)
#5 MeSH descriptor Rehabilitation
#6 (rehabilitat* or assess*) near/4 (low vision)
#7 MeSH descriptor Activities of Daily Living
#8 MeSH descriptor Risk Assessment
#9 MeSH descriptor Risk Factors
#10 MeSH descriptor Risk Management
#11 MeSH descriptor Safety Management
#12 (home near/3 safet*)
#13 (hazard*) near/3 (home or environment*)
#14 MeSH descriptor Home Care Services
#15 MeSH descriptor Occupational Therapy
#16 MeSH descriptor Exercise Therapy
#17 MeSH descriptor Physical Therapy Modalities
#18 behavio* near/3 modif*
#19 (program*) near/3 (home or exercise* or modif*)
#20 MeSH descriptor Cognitive Therapy
#21 MeSH descriptor Behavior Therapy
#22 (#5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21)
#23 (#4 AND #22)

 

Appendix 2. MEDLINE (OvidSP) search strategy

1. randomized controlled trial.pt.
2. (randomized or randomised).ab,ti.
3. placebo.ab,ti.
4. dt.fs.
5. randomly.ab,ti.
6. trial.ab,ti.
7. groups.ab,ti.
8. or/1-7
9. exp animals/
10. exp humans/
11. 9 not (9 and 10)
12. 8 not 11
13. exp vision disorders/
14. exp visually impaired persons/
15. ((low$ or handicap$ or subnormal$ or impair$ or partial$ or disab$) adj3 (vision or visual$ or sight$)).tw.
16. or/13-15
17. exp rehabilitation/
18. ((rehabilitat$ or assess$) adj4 low vision).tw.
19. exp activities of daily living/
20. risk assessment/
21. risk factors/
22. risk management/
23. safety management/
24. (home adj3 safety$).tw.
25. (hazard$ adj3 (home or environment$)).tw.
26. home care services/
27. occupational therapy/
28. exercise therapy/
29. physical therapy modalities/
30. (behavio$ adj3 modif$).tw.
31. (program$ adj3 (home or exercise$ or modif$)).tw.
32. Cognitive Therapy/
33. Behavior Therapy/
34. or/17-33
35. 16 and 34
36. 12 and 35

The search filter for trials at the beginning of the MEDLINE strategy is from the published paper by Glanville et al (Glanville 2006).

 

Appendix 3. EMBASE (OvidSP) search strategy

1. exp randomized controlled trial/
2. exp randomization/
3. exp double blind procedure/
4. exp single blind procedure/
5. random$.tw.
6. or/1-5
7. (animal or animal experiment).sh.
8. human.sh.
9. 7 and 8
10. 7 not 9
11. 6 not 10
12. exp clinical trial/
13. (clin$ adj3 trial$).tw.
14. ((singl$ or doubl$ or trebl$ or tripl$) adj3 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.
15. exp placebo/
16. placebo$.tw.
17. random$.tw.
18. exp experimental design/
19. exp crossover procedure/
20. exp control group/
21. exp latin square design/
22. or/12-21
23. 22 not 10
24. 23 not 11
25. exp comparative study/
26. exp evaluation/
27. exp prospective study/
28. (control$ or prospectiv$ or volunteer$).tw.
29. or/25-28
30. 29 not 10
31. 30 not (11 or 23)
32. 11 or 24 or 31
33. exp vision disorder/
34. exp visual impairment/
35. ((low$ or handicap$ or subnormal$ or impair$ or partial$ or disab$) adj3 (vision or visual$ or sight$)).tw.
36. or/33-35
37. exp rehabilitation/
38. ((rehabilitat$ or assess$) adj4 low vision).tw.
39. exp daily life activities/
40. risk assessment/
41. risk factor/
42. exp home safety/
43. (home adj3 safety$).tw.
44. exp falling/
45. (hazard$ adj3 (home or environment$)).tw.
46. home care/
47. occupational therapy/
48. kinesiotherapy/
49. exp physiotherapy/
50. (behavio$ adj3 modif$).tw.
51. (program$ adj3 (home or exercise$ or modif$)).tw.
52. Cognitive Therapy/
53. Behavior Therapy/
54. or/37-53
55. 36 and 54
56. 32 and 55

 

Appendix 4. CINAHL (EBSCO) search strategy

S42 S40 and S41
S41 (MH "Aged+") OR (MH "Aged, 80 and Over") OR (MH "Frail Elderly")
S40 S12 and S39
S39 S20 and S38
S38 S21 or S22 or S23 or S24 or S25 or S26 or S27 or S28 or S29 or S30 or S31 or S32 or S33 or S34 or S35 or S36 or S37
S37 (MH "Behavior Therapy+") OR (MH "Behavior Therapy (Iowa NIC) (Non-Cinahl)")
S36 (MH "Cognitive Therapy") OR (MH "Cognitive Therapy (Iowa NIC) (Non-Cinahl)")
S35 TX ((program* n3 home) or (program* n3 exercise) or (program* n3 modif*))
S34 TX behavio* n3 modif*
S33 (MH "Physical Therapy")
S32 (MH "Exercise Therapy: Ambulation (Iowa NIC)") OR (MH "Exercise Therapy: Balance (Iowa NIC)")
S31 (MH "Occupational Therapy+")
S30 (MH "Home Health Care")
S29 TX ((hazard* n3 home) or (hazard* n3 environment*))
S28 TX home n3 safety*
S27 (MH "Risk Management") OR (MH "Risk Management (Iowa NIC) (Non-Cinahl)")
S26 (MH "Risk Factors")
S25 (MH "Risk Assessment") OR (MH "Fall Risk Assessment Tool")
S24 (MH "Activities of Daily Living+") OR (MH "Activities of Daily Living (Saba CCC)") OR (MH "Activities of Daily Living Alteration (Saba CCC)") OR (MH "Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (Saba CCC)") OR (MH "Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Alteration (Saba CCC)") OR (MH "Altered Activities of Daily Living (NANDA) (Non-Cinahl)") OR (MH "Self Care: Activities of Daily Living (Iowa NOC)") OR (MH "Self-Care: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (Iowa NOC)")
S23 TX assess* n4 vision*
S22 TX rehabilitat* n4 vision*
S21 (MH "Rehabilitation of Vision Impaired+")
S20 S13 or S14 or S15 or S16 or S17 or S18 or S19
S19 TX ((disab* n3 vision) or (disab* n3 visual*) or (disab* n3 sight))
S18 TX ((partial* n3 vision) or (partial* n3 visual*) or (partial* n3 sight))
S17 TX ((impair* n3 vision) or (impair* n3 visual*) or (impair* n3 sight))
S16 TX ((subnormal* n3 vision) or (subnormal* n3 visual*) or (subnormal* n3 sight))
S15 TX ((handicap* n3 vision) or (handicap* n3 visual*) or (handicap* n3 sight))
S14 TX ((low* n3 vision) or (low* n3 visual*) or (low* n3 sight))
S13 (MH "Vision Disorders+")
S12 S1 or S2 or S3 or S4 or S5 or S6 or S7 or S8 or S9 or S10 or S11
S11 TX allocat* random*
S10 (MM "Quantitative Studies")
S9 (MM "Placebos")
S8 TX placebo*
S7 TX random* allocat*
S6 (MM "Random Assignment")
S5 TX randomi* control* trial*
S4 TX ( (singl* n1 blind*) or (singl* n1 mask*) ) or TX ( (doubl* n1 blind*) or (doubl* n1 mask*) ) or TX ( (tripl* n1 blind*) or (tripl* n1 mask*) ) or TX ( (trebl* n1 blind*) or (trebl* n1 mask*) )
S3 TX clinic* n1 trial*
S2 PT Clinical trial
S1 (MH "Clinical Trials+")

 

Appendix 5. AMED (OvidSP) search strategy

1. vision disorders/
2. ((low$ or handicap$ or subnormal$ or impair$ or partial$ or disab$) adj3 (vision or visual$ or sight$)).tw.
3. or/1-2
4. Rehabilitation/
5. ((rehabilitat$ or assess$) adj4 low vision).tw.
6. "Activities of daily living"/
7. Risk/
8. Safety/
9. (home adj3 safety$).tw.
10. (hazard$ adj3 (home or environment$)).tw.
11. Home care services/
12. Occupational therapy/
13. Exercise therapy/
14. physical therapy modalities/
15. (behavio$ adj3 modif$).tw.
16. (program$ adj3 (home or exercise$ or modif$)).tw.
17. Cognitive therapy/
18. Behavior therapy/
19. or/4-18
20. 3 and 19
21. "Randomized controlled trials"/
22. prospective studies/
23. single blind method/
24. random$.tw.
25. placebo$.tw.
26. trial$.tw.
27. groups.tw.
28. ((singl$ or doubl$) adj3 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.
29. or/21-28
30. 20 and 29

 

Appendix 6. OTseeker search strategy

low vision AND rehabilitation AND random

 

Appendix 7. metaRegister of Controlled Trials search strategy

low vision and rehabilitation

 

Appendix 8. ClinicalTrials.gov search strategy

Low Vision AND Rehabilitation

 

Appendix 9. ICTRP search strategy

Low Vision AND Rehabilitation

 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

Skelton, Ballinger, Neil and Howe conceived and developed the protocol. Gray and Palmer commented on drafts of the protocol and search strategies. Skelton and Howe reviewed all selected publications, with Gray as adjudicator. Ballinger, Howe, Palmer and Gray commented on drafts of the review.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

None known.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • Visibility, UK.
    Salary SP
  • Southampton University, UK.
    Salary CB
  • Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
    Salary DS, TH, LG
  • NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, UK.
    Salary FN

 

External sources

  • Thomas Pocklington Trust, UK.
    Partial financial support (CB) for review

 

Differences between protocol and review

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

Our search strategy changed slightly - see 'Electronic searches' section earlier.

 

Notes

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

The protocol and review has had slight amendment to the a priori subgroup analyses. The review authors planned to consider the following hypotheses for subgroup analysis if sufficient data were available:

  1. Behavioural interventions delivered in tandem with environmental interventions are more effective than either behavioural or environmental interventions delivered on their own.
  2. Interventions are equally effective on differing severities of visual impairment.
  3. Interventions are equally effective with fallers as they are with the general older population (inclusion criteria at point of recruitment into the study).

References

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Notes
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies excluded from this review
  19. References to ongoing studies
  20. Additional references
Balliet 1985 {published data only}
Campbell 2005b {published data only}
  • Campbell AJ, Robertson MC, La Grow SJ, Kerse NM, Sanderson GF, Jacobs RJ, et al. Randomised controlled trial of prevention of falls in people aged ≥75 with severe visual impairment: the VIP trial. BMJ 2005;331(7520):817.
  • La Grow SJ, Robertson MC, Campbell AJ, Clarke GA, Kerse NM. Reducing hazard related falls in people 75 years and older with significant visual impairment: how did a successful program work?. Injury Prevention 2006;12(5):296-301.
Cheung 2008 {published data only}
  • Cheung KK, Au KY, Lam WW, Jones AY. Effects of a structured exercise programme on functional balance in visually impaired elderly living in a residential setting. Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal 2008;26(1):45-50.
Conrod 1986 {published data only}
  • Conrod BE, Bross M, White CW. Active and passive perceptual learning in the visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 1986;80(1):528-31.
Cumming 2007 {published data only}
Dahlin-Ivanoff 2002 {published data only}
  • Dahlin Ivanoff S, Sonn U, Svensson E. A health education program for elderly persons with visual impairments and perceived security in the performance of daily occupations: a randomised study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 2002;56(3):322-30.
Day 2002 {published data only}
Deremeik 2007 {published data only}
  • Deremeik J, Broman AT, Freidman D, West SK, Massof R, Park W, et al. Low vision rehabilitation in a nursing home population: The SEEING study. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2007;101(11):701-14.
Eklund 2007 {published data only}
  • Eklund K, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. Low vision ADL and hearing assistive device use among older persons with visual impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology 2007;2(6):326-34.
Eklund 2008 {published data only}
  • Eklund K, Sjöstrand J, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. A randomised controlled trial of a health-promotion programme and its effect on ADL dependence and self reported health problems for the elderly visually impaired. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2008;15(2):68-74.
Engel 2000 {published data only}
  • Engel RJ, Welsh RL, Lewis LJ. Improving the well-being of vision-impaired older adults through orientation and mobility training and rehabilitation: an evaluation. Review 2000;32(2):67-76.
Girdler 2010 {published data only}
  • Girdler SJ, Boldy DP, Dhaliwal SS, Crowley M, Packer TL. Vision self-management for older adults: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2010;94(2):223-8.
Gutman 2002 {published data only}
  • Gutman C, Jaffe K. Group intervention for visually impaired grandparents. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2002;96(10):741-3.
Kuyk 2008 {published data only}
  • Kuyk T, Liu L, Elliott JL, Grubbs HE, Owsley C, McGwim G Jr, et al. Health-related quality of life following blind rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research 2008;4(17):497-507.
Kuyk 2010 {published data only}
  • Kuyk T, Liu L, Elliott J, Fuhr B. Visual search training and obstacle avoidance in adults with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2010;104(4):215-27.
La Grow 2004 {published data only}
  • La Grow SJ. The effectiveness of comprehensive low vision services for older persons with visual impairments in New Zealand. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2004;98(11):679-92.
McCabe 2000 {published data only}
  • McCabe P, Nason F, Demers Turco P, Friedman D, Seddon JM. Evaluating the effectiveness of a vision rehabilitation intervention using an objective and subjective measure of functional performance. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2000;7(4):259-70.
Overbury 1996 {published data only}
  • Overbury O, Quillman RD. Perceptual learning in adventitious low vision: task specificity and practice. Journal of Vision Rehabilitation 1996;10(1):7-14.
Pankow 2004 {published data only}
  • Pankow L, Luchins D, Studebaker J, Chettleburgh D. Evaluation of a vision rehabilitation program with older adults with visual impairment. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 2004;20(3):223-32.
Reeves 2004 {published data only}
  • Reeves BC, Harper RA, Russell WB. Enhanced low vision rehabilitation for people with age related macular degeneration: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Opthalmology 2004;88(11):1443-49.
Rumrill 1999 {published data only}
  • Rumrill PD. Effects of a social competence training program on accomodation request activity, situational self efficacy, and Americans with disabilities act knowledge among employed people with visual impairments and blindness. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 1999;12(1):25-31.
Scanlan 2004 {published data only}
  • Scanlan JM, Cuddeford JE. Low vision rehabilitation: A comparison of traditional and extended teaching programs. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2004;98(10):601-10.
Smith 2009 {published data only}
  • Smith TM, Thomas K, Dow K. The effect of an educational program for persons with macular degeneration; A pilot study. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2009;103(4):234-40.
Stelmack 2005 {published data only}
  • Stelmack J, Mancil R, Mancil G, Cummings R, Moran D, Rinne S, et al. Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT). Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2005;46:E-Abstract 1920.
  • Stelmack J, Tang C, Reda D, Rinne S, Mancil R, Cummings RW, et al. The Veterans Affairs low vision intervention trial follow up: twelve month outcomes. American Academy of Optometry 2008;12:644-7.
  • Stelmack JA, Rinne S, Mancil RM, Dean D, Moran D, Tang XC, et al. Successful outcomes from a structured curriculum used in the Veterans Affairs Low intervention Trial. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2008;102(10):636-48.
  • Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Reda DJ, Rinne S, Mancil RM, Massof RW, et al. Outcomes of the Veteran Affairs Low Vision Intervention trial (LOVIT). Archives of Ophthalmology 2008;126(5):608-17.
Vukicevic 2009 {published data only}
  • Vukicevic M, Fitzmaurice K. Eccentric viewing training in the home environment: can it improve performance of activities of daily living?. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2009;103(5):277-90.
West 2004 {published data only}
  • West SK, Friedman DF, Broman AT, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Deremeik J, et al. Effect of a vision restoration/rehabilitation program on physical function in a population of nursing home residents with visual loss. SEEING Clinical Trial. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2004;45:E-Abstract 1362.

References to ongoing studies

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Notes
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies excluded from this review
  19. References to ongoing studies
  20. Additional references
ACTRN12607000399493 {unpublished data only}
  • ACTRN12607000399493. A randomised controlled trial of a low vision self management program on quality of life in people with low vision. apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=ACTRN12607000399493 (accessed 13 December 2012).
NCT00545220 {unpublished data only}
  • NCT00545220. Problem solving training and low vision rehabilitation. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00545220 (accessed 13 December 2012).
NCT00769015 {unpublished data only}
  • NCT00769015. Low Vision Depression Prevention Trial for Age Related Macular Degeneration (VITAL). clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00769015 (accessed 13 December 2012).
UKCRN ID 10883 {unpublished data only}
  • UKCRN ID 10883. Preventing falls in older people with a visual impairment. public.ukcrn.org.uk/search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=10883.
Zijlstra 2009 {unpublished data only}
  • Zijlstra GA, van Rens GH, Scherder EJ, Brouwer DM, van der Velde J, Verstraten BF, et al. Effects and feasibility of a standardised orientation and mobility training in using an identification cane for older adults with low vision: design of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research 2009;9:153.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Notes
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies excluded from this review
  19. References to ongoing studies
  20. Additional references
Ballinger 2009
  • Ballinger C, Neil F, Howe T, Skelton DA, Palmer S, Gray L. A qualitative evidence synthesis of the views and experiences of older people with visual impairment about interventions to reduce falls. Unpublished report submitted to the Thomas Pocklington Trust. 2009.
Bamashmus 2004
Berger 2012
  • Berger S. Is my world getting smaller? The challenges of living with vision loss. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2012;106(1):5-16.
Binns 2012
  • Binns A, Bunce C, Dickinson C, Harper R, Tudor-Edwards R, Woodhouse M, et al. How effective is low vision service provision? A systematic review. Survey of Opthalmology 2012;57(1):34-65.
Brouwer 2008
  • Brouwer D, Sadlo G. Limitations in mobility: experiences of visually impaired older people. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2008;71(10):414-21.
Campbell 2005a
  • Campbell S. Deteriorating vision, falls and older people: the links. www.visibility.org.uk/what-we-do/research/#Falls (accessed 7 August 2009).
Clemson 2003
  • Clemson L, Manor D, Fitzgerald MH. Behavioral factors contributing to older adults falling in public places. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health 2003;23(3):107-17.
Clemson 2008
  • Clemson L, Mackenzie L, Ballinger C, Close JC, Cumming RG. Environmental interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling older people: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Journal of Aging Health 2008;20(8):954-71.
Crews 2004
  • Crews JE, Campbell VA. Vision impairment and hearing loss among community-dwelling older Americans: implications for health and functioning. American Journal of Public Health 2004;94(5):823-9.
Deeks 2011
  • Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook-cochrane.org.
Dreer 2008
Evans 2002
  • Evans JR, Fletcher AE, Wormald RP, Ng ES, Stirling S, Smeeth L, et al. Prevalence of visual impairment in people aged 75 years and older in Britain: results from the MRC trial of assessment and management of older people in the community. British Journal of Opthalmology 2002;86(7):795-800.
Evans 2004
  • Evans JR, Fletcher AE, Wormald RP. Causes of visual impairment in people aged 75 years and older in Britain: an add-on study to the MRC Trial of Assessment and Management of Older People in the Community. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2004;88(3):365-70.
Evans 2007
Gillespie 2012
Glanville 2006
  • Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso-Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130-6.
Green 2007
Gregg 2000
  • Gregg EW, Pereira MA, Caspersen CJ. Physical activity, falls, and fractures among older adults: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2000;48(8):883-93.
Higgins 2003
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook-cochrane.org.
Holbrook 2011
  • Holbrook EA, Stevens SL, Kang M, Morgan DW. Validation of a talking pedometer for adults with visual impairment. Medicine Science Sports and Exercise 2011;43(6):1094-9.
Ivers 1998
  • Ivers RQ, Cumming RG, Mitchell P, Attebo K. Visual impairment and falls in older adults: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1998;46(1):58-64.
Klein 2003
  • Klein B, Moss S, Klein R, Lee K, Cruickshanks K. Associations of visual function with physical outcomes and limitations 5 years later in an older population:The Beaver Dam eye study. Ophthalmology 2003;110(4):644-50.
La Grow 2006
  • La Grow SJ, Robertson MC, Campbell AJ, Clarke GA, Kerse NM. Reducing hazard related falls in people 75 years and older with significant visual impairment: how did a successful program work?. Injury Prevention 2006;12(5):296-301.
Lamb 2005
Lang 2007
Langelaan 2007
  • Langelaan M, van Nispen RMA, van Rens GHMB. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation and monodisciplinary rehabilitation for visually impaired adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006543]
Legood 2002
Markowitz 2006a
Markowitz 2006b
Murphy 2002
Preedy 2009
  • Preedy VR, Watson RR. Handbook of disease burdens and quality of life measures. New York: Springer, 2009.
Resnikoff 2004
  • Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2004;82(11):844-52.
Resnikoff 2008
  • Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2008;86(1):63-70.
Salive 1994
  • Salive ME, Guralnik J, Glynn RJ, Christen W, Wallace RB, Ostfeld AM. Association of visual impairment with mobility and physical function. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1994;42(3):287-92.
Schünemann 2011
  • Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and Summary of findings tables. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook-cochrane.org.
Stelmack 2008a
  • Stelmack J, Tang C, Reda D, Rinne S, Mancil R, Cummings RW, et al. The Veterans Affairs low vision intervention trial follow up: twelve month outcomes. American Academy of Optometry 2008;12:644-7.
Stelmack 2008b
  • Stelmack JA, Rinne S, Mancil RM, Dean D, Moran D, Tang XC, et al. Successful outcomes from a structured curriculum used in the Veterans Affairs Low intervention Trial. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 2008;102(10):636-48.
Stelmack 2008c
  • Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Reda DJ, Rinne S, Mancil RM, Massof RW, et al. Outcomes of the Veteran Affairs Low Vision Intervention trial (LOVIT). Archives of Ophthalmology 2008;126(5):608-17.
Stevens 2001
Tinetti 1998
  • Tinetti ME, Williams CS. The effect of falls and fall injuries on functioning in community-dwelling older persons. Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 1998;53(2):M112-9.
Virgili 2003
  • Virgili G, Rubin G. Orientation and mobility training for adults with low vision. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003925]
WHO 1992
  • World Health Organization. ICD-10:International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems: tenth revision. Geneva:World Health Organization 1992.
WHO 2001
  • World Health Organization. ICIDH-2: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. 1st Edition. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
WHO 2007
  • World Health Organization. A guide for population-based approaches to increasing levels of physical activity. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007.
Yardley 2002
  • Yardley L, Smith H. A prospective study of the relationship between feared consequences of falling and avoidance of activity in community-living older people. Gerontologist 2002;42(1):17-23.