The evaluation of an online nurse‐assisted eye‐screening tool in older adults receiving home healthcare.
Saved in:
| Title: | The evaluation of an online nurse‐assisted eye‐screening tool in older adults receiving home healthcare. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Elsman, Ellen B. M. (AUTHOR), Lee, Shan Qi (AUTHOR), van der Aa, Hilde P. A. (AUTHOR), van Nassau, Femke (AUTHOR), Wisse, Robert P. L. (AUTHOR), Maarsingh, Otto R. (AUTHOR), Keunen, Jan E. E. (AUTHOR), van Rens, Ger H. M. B. (AUTHOR), van Nispen, Ruth M. A. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. Jul2023, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p725-737. 13p. 1 Black and White Photograph, 6 Charts, 3 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Older people, Vision testing, Visual acuity, Medical care, User experience, Home nursing |
| Abstract: | Purpose: To investigate the agreement between an online nurse‐assisted eye‐screening tool and reference tests in older adults receiving home healthcare and to collect user experiences. Methods: Older adults (65+) receiving home healthcare were included. Home healthcare nurses assisted in administering the eye‐screening tool at participants' homes. Approximately 2 weeks later, a researcher administered reference tests at participants' homes. Experiences from participants and home healthcare nurses were collected. Agreement in outcomes (distance and near visual acuity, with the latter being measured using two different optotypes, and macular problems) between the eye‐screening tool and reference clinical testing was compared. A difference of less than ±0.15 logMAR was considered acceptable. Results: A total of 40 participants were included. Here, we describe the results for the right eye; results for the left eye were similar. The mean difference between the eye‐screening tool and reference tests for distance visual acuity was 0.02 logMAR. The mean difference between the eye‐screening tool and reference tests using two different optotypes for near visual acuity was 0.06 and 0.03 logMAR, respectively. The majority of the individual data points were within the ±0.15 logMAR threshold (75%, 51% and 58%, respectively). The agreement between tests for macular problems was 75%. Participants and home healthcare nurses were generally satisfied with the eye‐screening tool, although remarks for further improvements were made. Conclusions: The eye‐screening tool is promising for nurse‐assisted eye screening in older adults receiving home healthcare, with the mostly satisfactory agreement. After implementing the eye‐screening tool in practice, cost‐effectiveness needs to be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: To investigate the agreement between an online nurse‐assisted eye‐screening tool and reference tests in older adults receiving home healthcare and to collect user experiences. Methods: Older adults (65+) receiving home healthcare were included. Home healthcare nurses assisted in administering the eye‐screening tool at participants' homes. Approximately 2 weeks later, a researcher administered reference tests at participants' homes. Experiences from participants and home healthcare nurses were collected. Agreement in outcomes (distance and near visual acuity, with the latter being measured using two different optotypes, and macular problems) between the eye‐screening tool and reference clinical testing was compared. A difference of less than ±0.15 logMAR was considered acceptable. Results: A total of 40 participants were included. Here, we describe the results for the right eye; results for the left eye were similar. The mean difference between the eye‐screening tool and reference tests for distance visual acuity was 0.02 logMAR. The mean difference between the eye‐screening tool and reference tests using two different optotypes for near visual acuity was 0.06 and 0.03 logMAR, respectively. The majority of the individual data points were within the ±0.15 logMAR threshold (75%, 51% and 58%, respectively). The agreement between tests for macular problems was 75%. Participants and home healthcare nurses were generally satisfied with the eye‐screening tool, although remarks for further improvements were made. Conclusions: The eye‐screening tool is promising for nurse‐assisted eye screening in older adults receiving home healthcare, with the mostly satisfactory agreement. After implementing the eye‐screening tool in practice, cost‐effectiveness needs to be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02755408 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/opo.13110 |
