Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: We determined over-the-counter magnifier usage rates by patients who newly presented for vision rehabilitation services, and sought to elucidate whether patients\' ratings of over-the-counter magnifiers were associated with vision rehabilitation management strategies.
UNASSIGNED: Retrospective records reviews of 274 new vision rehabilitation patients seen between 2021-2023 were completed by three optometric providers at an ophthalmic academic center, college of optometry, and private practice.
UNASSIGNED: Over half (58%) of patients tried an over-the-counter magnifier. Older age was significantly associated with trying over-the-counter magnifiers (OR:1.04; p < 0.001). Patients who tried an over-the-counter magnifier had significantly greater odds of the provider recommending and/or dispensing a prescribed hand-held optical illuminated magnifier (P< =0.04) or recommending a CCTV electronic magnifier (p = 0.049). The majority indicated over-the-counter magnifiers were somewhat (46%) or not helpful (38%). There was a significantly greater odds of rating the over-the-counter magnifier as not helpful when the provider subsequently recommended a CCTV (OR:4.8; p = 0.01) or higher spectacle-based near add power (OR: 2.0; p = 0.02).
UNASSIGNED: Since most new patients were unsatisfied with over-the-counter magnifiers, it is encouraging that previous over-the-counter magnifier use often led to upgrades with hand-held optical illuminated magnifiers prescribed by vision rehabilitation providers, or patients were transitioned to CCTV electronic magnifiers or spectacle-based high add powers for near reading. These findings support that older adults who have previously experienced that over-the-counter magnifiers were either helpful or unhelpful are ideal candidates to receive vision rehabilitation by optometric providers who can transition them to a prescribed magnification device to better support their visual functioning needs for near reading.
Over-the-counter magnifiers were deemed helpful by only a small proportion of visually-impaired patients who were newly seeking vision rehabilitation services; but there other are viable options for them, since optometric vision rehabilitation providers prescribed alternative magnification devices, such as spectacle-based high near add powers or electronic visual aids for patients.Patients who have previously tried an over-the-counter magnifier were often recommended and received a different magnification device from vision rehabilitation providers who should be encouraged to evaluate other aids in-office to determine if they are more acceptable and/or better suited to meet patients’ needs.For patients and their families who have not yet pursued vision rehabilitation, our findings indicate that they should not give up on magnifiers and remain open to the possibility of using other types of magnification that could be helpful, such as a different optical magnifier, prescription for strong near reading glasses, electronic video magnification, or visual assistive apps for smartphones or tablets.
UNASSIGNED: Retrospective records reviews of 274 new vision rehabilitation patients seen between 2021-2023 were completed by three optometric providers at an ophthalmic academic center, college of optometry, and private practice.
UNASSIGNED: Over half (58%) of patients tried an over-the-counter magnifier. Older age was significantly associated with trying over-the-counter magnifiers (OR:1.04; p < 0.001). Patients who tried an over-the-counter magnifier had significantly greater odds of the provider recommending and/or dispensing a prescribed hand-held optical illuminated magnifier (P< =0.04) or recommending a CCTV electronic magnifier (p = 0.049). The majority indicated over-the-counter magnifiers were somewhat (46%) or not helpful (38%). There was a significantly greater odds of rating the over-the-counter magnifier as not helpful when the provider subsequently recommended a CCTV (OR:4.8; p = 0.01) or higher spectacle-based near add power (OR: 2.0; p = 0.02).
UNASSIGNED: Since most new patients were unsatisfied with over-the-counter magnifiers, it is encouraging that previous over-the-counter magnifier use often led to upgrades with hand-held optical illuminated magnifiers prescribed by vision rehabilitation providers, or patients were transitioned to CCTV electronic magnifiers or spectacle-based high add powers for near reading. These findings support that older adults who have previously experienced that over-the-counter magnifiers were either helpful or unhelpful are ideal candidates to receive vision rehabilitation by optometric providers who can transition them to a prescribed magnification device to better support their visual functioning needs for near reading.
Over-the-counter magnifiers were deemed helpful by only a small proportion of visually-impaired patients who were newly seeking vision rehabilitation services; but there other are viable options for them, since optometric vision rehabilitation providers prescribed alternative magnification devices, such as spectacle-based high near add powers or electronic visual aids for patients.Patients who have previously tried an over-the-counter magnifier were often recommended and received a different magnification device from vision rehabilitation providers who should be encouraged to evaluate other aids in-office to determine if they are more acceptable and/or better suited to meet patients’ needs.For patients and their families who have not yet pursued vision rehabilitation, our findings indicate that they should not give up on magnifiers and remain open to the possibility of using other types of magnification that could be helpful, such as a different optical magnifier, prescription for strong near reading glasses, electronic video magnification, or visual assistive apps for smartphones or tablets.
摘要：
■我们确定了新接受视力康复服务的患者的非处方放大镜使用率，并试图阐明患者的非处方放大镜评级是否与视力康复管理策略相关。
■对2021-2023年间看到的274名新的视力康复患者的回顾性记录审查是由三家眼科学术中心的验光提供者完成的。验光学院,私人实践。
■超过一半（58％）的患者尝试使用非处方放大镜。年龄较大与尝试非处方放大镜显著相关(OR:1.04;p<0.001)。尝试使用非处方放大镜的患者，提供者推荐和/或分配规定的手持式光学照明放大镜（P<=0.04）或推荐CCTV电子放大镜（P=0.049）的可能性更大。大多数表明非处方放大镜有些（46％）或没有帮助（38％）。当提供商随后推荐闭路电视（OR：4.8；p=0.01）或更高的基于眼镜的近增加功率（OR：2.0；p=0.02）时，将非处方放大镜评级为无帮助的可能性要大得多。
■由于大多数新患者对非处方放大镜不满意，令人鼓舞的是，以前的非处方放大镜使用经常导致视力康复提供者规定的手持式光学照明放大镜的升级，或将患者过渡到CCTV电子放大镜或基于眼镜的高附加功率以进行近阅读。这些发现支持，以前经历过非处方药放大镜有帮助或没有帮助的老年人是接受验光提供者视力康复的理想候选人，他们可以将他们过渡到规定的放大设备，以更好地支持他们的视觉功能需求。
只有一小部分新寻求视力康复服务的视力受损患者认为非处方放大镜有帮助；但他们还有其他可行的选择，由于验光视力康复提供者规定了替代放大装置，例如基于眼镜的高近增加功率或为患者提供电子视觉辅助。通常建议以前尝试过非处方放大镜的患者，并从视力康复提供者那里接受不同的放大设备，应鼓励他们在办公室评估其他辅助设备，以确定它们是否更可接受和/或更适合满足患者的需求。对于尚未进行视力康复的患者及其家属,我们的研究结果表明，他们不应该放弃放大镜，并保持开放的可能性，使用其他类型的放大可能是有益的，比如不同的光学放大镜，强近老花镜的处方，电子视频放大，或智能手机或平板电脑的视觉辅助应用程序。
■对2021-2023年间看到的274名新的视力康复患者的回顾性记录审查是由三家眼科学术中心的验光提供者完成的。验光学院,私人实践。
■超过一半（58％）的患者尝试使用非处方放大镜。年龄较大与尝试非处方放大镜显著相关(OR:1.04;p<0.001)。尝试使用非处方放大镜的患者，提供者推荐和/或分配规定的手持式光学照明放大镜（P<=0.04）或推荐CCTV电子放大镜（P=0.049）的可能性更大。大多数表明非处方放大镜有些（46％）或没有帮助（38％）。当提供商随后推荐闭路电视（OR：4.8；p=0.01）或更高的基于眼镜的近增加功率（OR：2.0；p=0.02）时，将非处方放大镜评级为无帮助的可能性要大得多。
■由于大多数新患者对非处方放大镜不满意，令人鼓舞的是，以前的非处方放大镜使用经常导致视力康复提供者规定的手持式光学照明放大镜的升级，或将患者过渡到CCTV电子放大镜或基于眼镜的高附加功率以进行近阅读。这些发现支持，以前经历过非处方药放大镜有帮助或没有帮助的老年人是接受验光提供者视力康复的理想候选人，他们可以将他们过渡到规定的放大设备，以更好地支持他们的视觉功能需求。
只有一小部分新寻求视力康复服务的视力受损患者认为非处方放大镜有帮助；但他们还有其他可行的选择，由于验光视力康复提供者规定了替代放大装置，例如基于眼镜的高近增加功率或为患者提供电子视觉辅助。通常建议以前尝试过非处方放大镜的患者，并从视力康复提供者那里接受不同的放大设备，应鼓励他们在办公室评估其他辅助设备，以确定它们是否更可接受和/或更适合满足患者的需求。对于尚未进行视力康复的患者及其家属,我们的研究结果表明，他们不应该放弃放大镜，并保持开放的可能性，使用其他类型的放大可能是有益的，比如不同的光学放大镜，强近老花镜的处方，电子视频放大，或智能手机或平板电脑的视觉辅助应用程序。
