28.12.2014 Views

Willard Bleything.pdf - Optometric Extension Program Foundation

Willard Bleything.pdf - Optometric Extension Program Foundation

Willard Bleything.pdf - Optometric Extension Program Foundation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Background and Aims<br />

• Studies support the notion that socially disadvantaged<br />

children are especially at risk for poor health including<br />

vision disorders<br />

• Most of the visual problems are functional involving<br />

binocular vision and visual processing dysfunction<br />

• Lenses and vision therapy remain the treatment of choice<br />

for such disorders, however ….<br />

• Limited access to visual care is a major concern,<br />

particularly in the socially‐at‐risk population of youth


Socially –At‐Risk Populations<br />

• Solon and Mozlin looked at the impact of poverty on<br />

health, vision development and school failure 1<br />

• Zaba examined the linkage between children’s vision, and<br />

learning problems, delinquency, illiteracy, social and<br />

emotional problems 2<br />

• Duckman and Festinger made an in‐depth effort to deliver<br />

vision care to children in foster care 3<br />

• 1 Solan H, Mozlin R. Children in poverty; impact on health, visual development, and school failure. J Optom Devel<br />

1997;28:7‐28.<br />

• 2 Zaba J. Social, emotional, and educational consequences of undetected children’s vision problems. J Behav<br />

Optom 2001;12:66‐70.<br />

• 3 Duckman R, Festinger T. Delivery of vision care in foster care placements in New York City. J Optom Vis Devel<br />

2002;33:116‐125.


Socially –At‐Risk – Populations<br />

Adolescents<br />

• Inner‐city youth: visual screening resulted in 52% referral<br />

rate 4<br />

• Middle /high school at‐risk children: visual screening<br />

resulted in 97 % referral rate 5<br />

• Socially‐at‐risk 17‐19 YO: visual screening resulted in a<br />

80% referral rate 6<br />

• 4 Suchoff I, Mozlin R. visual screening of an adolescent inner city population. J Behav Optom 2001; 3:71‐74.<br />

• 5 Johnson R, Nottingham D, Stratton R, et al. The vision screening of academically and behaviorally at‐risk<br />

pupils. J Behav Optom 1996:7:39‐42.<br />

• 6 Johnson R, Zaba J. Visual screening of at risk college students. J Behav Optom 1995; 6:63‐65.


Health Care Delivery<br />

• Think public health vs. private office<br />

• Most of our experience in providing ‘private practice’ care<br />

is with a single patient being examined followed by a<br />

customized treatment plan of lenses and vision therapy<br />

• The socially‐at‐risk population p has limited access to the<br />

private practice health care delivery model<br />

• This population is often subject to health care delivery<br />

p p j y<br />

under a public health model


Health Care Delivery<br />

• How effective would it be to provide optometric care in a<br />

group setting, based upon the enhancement of basic<br />

visual skills, utilizing a single ‘serves all’ treatment plan<br />

• In a sense, we are posing a question similar il to the delivery<br />

of educational instruction<br />

• The well‐to‐do might hire a private tutor to teach their<br />

children, the program of studies being customized for<br />

each student<br />

• The public schools use a standardized ‘serves all’<br />

curriculum that is aimed at being most effective for most<br />

students


Aim of Study<br />

• The aim of this project was to determine the effectiveness<br />

of a visual intervention program, involving prescription<br />

lenses and group delivered – visual skills based‐ single<br />

treatment planned – vision therapy on a socially‐at‐risk at population of youth


Methods • Study Population<br />

In 1993, Congress authorized the National Guard<br />

to conduct alternative schools for the high school<br />

drop out population – a group now recognized as a<br />

key public concern.<br />

As can be expected, learning disabilities are a<br />

common characteristic in this special population.<br />

Of particular significance to this project is the<br />

research that has shown visual dysfunction to be a<br />

key risk factor in learning disabilities, especially<br />

reading skills.


Methods • Study Population<br />

• Socially‐at‐risk youth between 16 – 18 years of age<br />

• All subjects were high school dropouts and performing 4 –<br />

6 grades below expectations<br />

• All subjects were enrolled in the Youth ChalleNGe High<br />

School program operated by the Oregon National Guard<br />

near Bend, Oregon during the period of January –June<br />

2006<br />

• Following the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki,<br />

informed consent was arranged through the<br />

administrative offices of the Youth ChalleNGe High School


Methods • Screening Protocol<br />

• All students enrolled (n=123) were screened<br />

• A modified version of the New York State <strong>Optometric</strong><br />

Association (NYSOA) Vision Screening Battery was used<br />

• Tests omitted were color perception and form perception<br />

• Tests added were distance retinoscopy (non‐cycloplegic),<br />

Berry Visual‐Motor‐Integration (VMI), and the College of<br />

Optometrists in Vision Development‐ Quality of Life<br />

Outcomes (COVD‐QOL) questionnaire


Methods • Follow‐Up Exams<br />

• Those referred by screening (n=55)[46%] were given<br />

comprehensive optometric examinations by a team of 6<br />

optometrists and 6 technicians within 6 days of the initial<br />

screening<br />

• Prescription lenses/frames were provided as indicated<br />

• Of the 55 examined, 32 [58%] were provided with a new<br />

lens prescription; an additional 7 were told to wear their<br />

current Rx<br />

• A total of 71% were in need of a lens Rx


Methods • Vision Therapy<br />

• 24 of those receiving a comprehensive exam were placed<br />

into a vision therapy intervention group<br />

• The remaining 31 were placed into a control group with<br />

vision therapy being made available following the study<br />

• The vision therapy group and control group were matched<br />

on age, gender, and VMI Standard Scores<br />

• Exclusion criteria selected out subjects with strabismus<br />

j<br />

and corneal scars from prior trauma


Methods • Vision Therapy<br />

• Vision therapy consisted of two 1‐hour sessions per week<br />

for 12 weeks<br />

• Half of the therapy session was devoted to developing<br />

basic visual skills such as eye movements,<br />

accommodative/vergence ranges and flexibility, fusion<br />

and stereopsis<br />

• The remaining time was spent on computerized visual<br />

perceptual procedures (PTS II)<br />

• The control group spent an equal amount of time in a<br />

structured study hall working on assignments from the<br />

courses taken at the special high school


Methods • Vision Therapy<br />

• A room was set‐aside within the school to treat 6 subjects at a<br />

time<br />

• Subjects rotated from one treatment station to another every<br />

few minutes for a period of 30 minutes and kept a log of their<br />

performance at each station<br />

• In an adjoining i room, another 6 subjects received computerbased<br />

visual perceptual training; this also went for 30 minutes<br />

• At the midpoint of the 60 minute session, the two groups<br />

switched places thus each subject received vision training in<br />

each of the two treatment rooms for a total of 60 minutes twice<br />

each week


Methods • Vision Therapy<br />

Weeks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1<br />

1<br />

Visual Skill Areas<br />

Ocular Motility • • • • • • • • • • •<br />

Accommodative Facility • • • • •<br />

Hand/Eye Coordination • • • •<br />

Ocular Motility / Balance Board • • •<br />

CheiroscopicTracing • •<br />

Fusion / Vergence • • • •<br />

Stereopsis /Vergence • • • • •<br />

12


Methods • Vision Therapy<br />

• Perceptual Therapy (Perceptual Therapy System II)<br />

• Sequential Processing<br />

• Temporal Vision Perception Processing<br />

• Speed of Information Processing<br />

• Rapid Automatized Naming


Results<br />

• Pre and post results were compared for:<br />

• Near accommodative and vergence measures<br />

• Saccades<br />

• COVD Quality of Life Outcomes Questionnaire<br />

• Two‐ tailed Paired Student’s t‐Test comparisons were<br />

made to test statistical significance<br />

• While general improvement was noted in most areas<br />

measured only those that achieved statistical significance<br />

will be reported


Results • Accommodative Facility<br />

• Accommodative facility<br />

• Pre test: 7.83 cycles per minute (mean of VT Group)<br />

• Post test: 11.67 cycles per minute (mean of VT Group)<br />

• t=3.48 ; df=23; p=0.002


Results • NPC<br />

• Near point of convergence • Break<br />

• Pre test : 2.29 inches (mean of VT Group)<br />

• Post test : 0.48 inches (mean of VT Group)<br />

• t= 3.29; df= 23; p= 0.003<br />

• Near point of convergence • Recovery<br />

• Pre test : 4.83 inches (mean of VT Group)<br />

• Post test : 1.76 inches (mean of VT Group)<br />

• t= 3.71; df= 23; p= 0.001


Results • Saccades<br />

• King‐Devick Total time<br />

• Pre test : 55.09 seconds (mean of VT Group)<br />

• Post test : 43.96 seconds (mean of VT Group)<br />

• t= 3.66; df= 21; p= 0.001


Results • Quality of Life<br />

• COVD Quality‐of‐Life Questionnaire<br />

• Pre test symptoms score: 34.8 (mean of VT Group)<br />

• Post test symptoms score; 20.8 (mean of VT Group)<br />

• t= 4.37; df= 22; p= 0.0001<br />

• For a more complete discussion see:<br />

• <strong>Bleything</strong> WB, Landis SL. Effectiveness of the College of Optometrists in Vision Development –QOL<br />

Questionnaire in a socially at risk population of youth. Optom Vis Dev 2008;39(1)33‐41


Conclusions<br />

• While a group delivered – visual skills based – single<br />

treatment plan delivery system has obvious limitations<br />

measured against individualized therapy, such an<br />

approach can have positive results in building visual skills<br />

when the access to care limits delivery mode options.


Pacific University<br />

Project Site<br />

You are here


Mount Hood


Near base of Cascade Mountains


Former US Army Communications<br />

Center


Vision Screening Station


Vision Screening Station


Vision Screening Station


Vision Screening Station


Therapy Room


Therapy Room


Hand – Eye Coordination


Eye Pursuits with Yoked Prism


Eye Fixations


Fusion with Accomm‐Vergence


Optometry Students Included in<br />

Project


Core Team Members


Acknowledgements<br />

• This project was funded, in part, by the College of<br />

Optometrists in Vision Development Research Fund,<br />

and the Kikuchi Research Fund at Pacific University. A<br />

beginning pilot project received funding from the<br />

<strong>Optometric</strong> <strong>Extension</strong> <strong>Program</strong> <strong>Foundation</strong>.<br />

• Appreciation is extended to volunteers from the<br />

Children’s Vision <strong>Foundation</strong>, the staff at the Youth<br />

ChalleNGe High School, the general optometric<br />

community, and especially to the staff at Integrated<br />

Eye Care for use of facilities.<br />

• A special note of appreciation for the work of Sandra<br />

Landis, OD who supervised much of the on‐site<br />

therapy.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!