Evaluation of reading, writing, and watching TV using the Dutch ICF Activity Inventory
Janna E Bruijning1, Ger H M B van Rens, Dirk L Knol
1*PhD †MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. (JEB, GHMBvR, RMAvN); EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research (EMGO+), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (JEB, GHMBvR, RMAvN); Department of Ophthalmology, Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond, the Netherlands (GHMBvR); and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (DLK). Department of Optometry and Orthoptics, Institute for Allied Healthcare Professions, HU University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands (JEB).
Purpose:
To investigate the longitudinal outcomes of rehabilitation (from baseline to 4 and 12 months) at a multidisciplinary rehabilitation center. The three goals ("Reading," "Writing," and "Watching TV") were measured with the Dutch ICF Activity Inventory (D-AI). In addition, outcomes were compared with the Low Vision Quality-of-Life questionnaire (LVQOL) for better insight into the (longitudinal) interpretation.
Methods:
In a cohort of 241 visually impaired persons, corrected and uncorrected linear mixed models were used to determine longitudinal rehabilitation outcomes for the D-AI goals "Reading," "Writing," and "Watching TV," and difficulty and underlying tasks, as well as for the LVQOL scales "Basic aspects" and "Reading and fine work." At baseline, Spearman correlations were determined for similar scales of the D-AI and LVQOL.
Results:
Importance scores of goals were stable over time. Difficulty scores decreased over time, but the differences were not significant at each measurement moment. For reading, difficulty of underlying tasks seemed to reflect the (change in) difficulty at the goal level; however, change in writing tasks did not reflect the change in the umbrella goal. Each of the three subscales of underlying tasks of the goal "Watching TV" changed in a different way. Changes in similar LVQOL scales were comparable, although less pronounced and more influenced by depression. Prescription or advice of low-vision aids and training in visual devices was not related (p > 0.01) with any of the outcome measures.
Conclusions:
It seems reasonable to conclude that the decrease in perceived difficulty was an effect of rehabilitation. The D-AI goal scores for difficulty were less influenced by depression and may be more sensitive to measure change over time compared with the LVQOL. Importance scores may not be useful for evaluation purposes.
