pilipiliÂþ»­

PhD-student:

Yaser Alnasery

PIs/Co-PIs:

Yaser Alnasery, PhD candidate, Kaitlin Sibbald, PhD candidate, Andria Kosel, OT Reg (NS), Victoria Godin, OT Reg (NS)

Supervisor:

Tanya L Packer, PhD OT Reg (NS)

Study Summary;

Introduction: Reading is one of the main occupations that people with low vision name when setting goals and priorities yet, devices to assist with this goal are often abandoned. While many Assistive Technology Devices (ATDs) are available, not much is known about how and why people with low vision are choosing their reading devices. This review aims to understand what ATDs people with low vision prefer to use for reading, as well as how and why these ATDs were selected.
Methods: This scoping review was based on the six stages of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework. A research team, consisting of the primary investigator, an experienced researcher in the field of low vision and three occupational therapists, was compiled. Articles were retrieved from thirteen online databases and went through a two-level screening process. Using the Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) model, we extracted data on the types and characteristics of technology used for reading as well as people’s opinion regarding how and why they have selected their ATDs.
Results: The most common reading devices examined in the studies were magnifiers. Although the data showed that most of the older adults in different studies used or preferred to use low technology ATD, it was not clear if they preferred this type of device because they liked its features or simply because they lack the necessary training and access to use other high-technology devices. The most commonly referenced reason for choosing a device was technology features such as ease of navigation, brightness, contrast, compatibility with other technology and a natural sounding voice. Finally, the most common way that participants obtained technology was that it was prescribed by a professional such as ophthalmologists, optician, and occupational therapists, often following a low vision assessment.
Takeaway points:
1) The features of a device might be one of the main influences that lead clients to use a specific device, but other factors have more influence collectively which are: the emotional factors, and factors not related to device features such as cost, training, and social influences.
2) Clients usually use multiple devices depending on the type of reading and location or environment where they are reading.
3) More information needed about the source of ATDs used by clients with low vision to know how to best allocate resources and understand other factors might influence clients’ choice of ATDs.