患者对“舒适”字体大小的识别是否为低视力阅读评估的有用临床参数?

Keziah Latham, Jane Macnaughton
{"title":"患者对“舒适”字体大小的识别是否为低视力阅读评估的有用临床参数?","authors":"Keziah Latham,&nbsp;Jane Macnaughton","doi":"10.1111/opo.12946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine what a person with vision loss considers a 'comfortable' print size to read, and examine whether this reflects any of three currently used parameters for identifying print size required for sustained reading tasks: minimum size to achieve maximum reading speed (the critical print size (CPS)); minimum size for functional reading at 80 wpm and/or a size that is double the reading acuity (representing an acuity reserve of 2:1).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-seven participants entering low vision rehabilitation (mean age 77 years, 24 with macular degeneration) were assessed using MNREAD charts to determine reading acuity, maximum reading speed, CPS and the minimum size allowing functional (80 wpm) reading. Comfortable print size was assessed by asking participants to identify 'the smallest print size that you would find comfortable using' on the MNREAD chart.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was little difference between comfortable print size and CPS (mean difference 0.05 logMAR (SD 0.18); p = 0.08, limits of agreement ±0.35 logMAR), and no trend for the difference between values to differ across the functional range. Size for functional reading could only be assessed for 41 participants, and the difference between this and comfortable print size varied across the functional range. Comfortable print size was consistently smaller than twice the reading acuity size (mean difference 0.11 logMAR (SD 0.17); p < 0.001), with an average acuity reserve of 1.74:1.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Asking people with visual impairment to identify a print size that is comfortable to read provides a print size similar to the CPS. This can be used as a guide in selecting magnification for sustained reading without having to undertake further analyses. Identification of perceived comfortable print size may offer a time-efficient clinical method of estimating magnification requirements, and be relevant for undertaking effective remote consultations.</p>","PeriodicalId":520731,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)","volume":" ","pages":"482-490"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is patient identification of 'comfortable' print size a useful clinical parameter for low vision reading assessment?\",\"authors\":\"Keziah Latham,&nbsp;Jane Macnaughton\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/opo.12946\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine what a person with vision loss considers a 'comfortable' print size to read, and examine whether this reflects any of three currently used parameters for identifying print size required for sustained reading tasks: minimum size to achieve maximum reading speed (the critical print size (CPS)); minimum size for functional reading at 80 wpm and/or a size that is double the reading acuity (representing an acuity reserve of 2:1).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-seven participants entering low vision rehabilitation (mean age 77 years, 24 with macular degeneration) were assessed using MNREAD charts to determine reading acuity, maximum reading speed, CPS and the minimum size allowing functional (80 wpm) reading. Comfortable print size was assessed by asking participants to identify 'the smallest print size that you would find comfortable using' on the MNREAD chart.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was little difference between comfortable print size and CPS (mean difference 0.05 logMAR (SD 0.18); p = 0.08, limits of agreement ±0.35 logMAR), and no trend for the difference between values to differ across the functional range. Size for functional reading could only be assessed for 41 participants, and the difference between this and comfortable print size varied across the functional range. Comfortable print size was consistently smaller than twice the reading acuity size (mean difference 0.11 logMAR (SD 0.17); p < 0.001), with an average acuity reserve of 1.74:1.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Asking people with visual impairment to identify a print size that is comfortable to read provides a print size similar to the CPS. This can be used as a guide in selecting magnification for sustained reading without having to undertake further analyses. Identification of perceived comfortable print size may offer a time-efficient clinical method of estimating magnification requirements, and be relevant for undertaking effective remote consultations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520731,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"482-490\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12946\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/2/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12946","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是确定视力丧失者认为“舒适”的印刷尺寸,并检查这是否反映了当前用于确定持续阅读任务所需的印刷尺寸的三个参数中的任何一个:达到最大阅读速度的最小尺寸(临界印刷尺寸(CPS));在80 wpm下的功能读数的最小尺寸和/或读数锐度的两倍的尺寸(表示锐度储备为2:1)。方法:使用MNREAD图表评估47名进入低视力康复的参与者(平均年龄77岁,24岁伴有黄斑变性),以确定阅读灵敏度、最大阅读速度、CPS和允许功能阅读的最小尺寸(80 wpm)。通过要求参与者在MNREAD图表上找出“你觉得舒服的最小打印尺寸”来评估舒适的打印尺寸。结果:舒适打印尺寸与CPS差异不大(平均差异0.05 logMAR (SD 0.18);p = 0.08,一致性限±0.35 logMAR),并且在功能范围内值之间的差异没有趋势。功能性阅读的尺寸仅对41名参与者进行了评估,这与舒适的打印尺寸之间的差异在功能范围内有所不同。舒适打印尺寸始终小于阅读锐度尺寸的两倍(平均差0.11 logMAR (SD 0.17);p结论:要求有视觉障碍的人识别一种阅读舒适的印刷尺寸,提供了一种与CPS相似的印刷尺寸。这可以作为一个指南,在选择放大率为持续阅读,而不必进行进一步的分析。识别可感知的舒适打印尺寸可以提供一种有效的临床方法来估计放大需求,并且与进行有效的远程咨询有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is patient identification of 'comfortable' print size a useful clinical parameter for low vision reading assessment?

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine what a person with vision loss considers a 'comfortable' print size to read, and examine whether this reflects any of three currently used parameters for identifying print size required for sustained reading tasks: minimum size to achieve maximum reading speed (the critical print size (CPS)); minimum size for functional reading at 80 wpm and/or a size that is double the reading acuity (representing an acuity reserve of 2:1).

Methods: Forty-seven participants entering low vision rehabilitation (mean age 77 years, 24 with macular degeneration) were assessed using MNREAD charts to determine reading acuity, maximum reading speed, CPS and the minimum size allowing functional (80 wpm) reading. Comfortable print size was assessed by asking participants to identify 'the smallest print size that you would find comfortable using' on the MNREAD chart.

Results: There was little difference between comfortable print size and CPS (mean difference 0.05 logMAR (SD 0.18); p = 0.08, limits of agreement ±0.35 logMAR), and no trend for the difference between values to differ across the functional range. Size for functional reading could only be assessed for 41 participants, and the difference between this and comfortable print size varied across the functional range. Comfortable print size was consistently smaller than twice the reading acuity size (mean difference 0.11 logMAR (SD 0.17); p < 0.001), with an average acuity reserve of 1.74:1.

Conclusions: Asking people with visual impairment to identify a print size that is comfortable to read provides a print size similar to the CPS. This can be used as a guide in selecting magnification for sustained reading without having to undertake further analyses. Identification of perceived comfortable print size may offer a time-efficient clinical method of estimating magnification requirements, and be relevant for undertaking effective remote consultations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信