Nancy Ellis

Economic evaluation of blind rehabilitation for veterans with macular diseases in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Purpose: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT) developed an outpatient low-vision programme for patients with macular diseases providing low-vision rehabilitation comparable to VA inpatient blind rehabilitation centres (BRCs). This programme targets veterans who do not need or chose not to participate in a comprehensive inpatient blind rehabilitation programme. We examined costs and consequences using veterans in LOVIT and comparable veterans in an inpatient BRC. Methods: We compared costs and consequences between treatment patients who participated in LOVIT, a two-site randomized clinical trial, and a sample of comparable patients who received treatment at a VA inpatient BRC. We measured consequences as the change in functional visual ability from baseline to follow-up (LOVIT: 4 months after randomization; BRC: 3 months after discharge) using the VA Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VA LV VFQ-48). Results: There were 55 LOVIT and 121 BRC patients for our analyses. Average costs were

The Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT): Design and Methodology

38,627.3 higher for BRC patients (

An analysis of interobserver reliability and representativeness of data from the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Processes, Structures, and Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery.

5,054.4 ±

DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERACTIVE DATA BASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR CAPTURING LARGE VOLUMES OF DATA

404.7 SD for LOVIT vs.

Coronary-Artery Revascularization before Elective Major Vascular Surgery

43,681.7 ±

Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery : Results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study

8,853.6 SD for BRC, p < 0.0001). Thus, the BRC cost

Affairs Cooperative Study after coronary artery bypass surgery: Results from a Department of Veterans Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts

38,627.3 per patient more than the LOVIT programme (95% CI:

The Use of Zoledronic Acid in Men Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer With Severe Osteopenia or Osteoporosis

17,414 to

1079-87 Predictors of 10-year patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery: Results from a department of veterans affairs cooperative study

273,482). There was a greater improvement in overall visual ability, mobility, and visual motor skill scores for BRC patients; however, there was no significant difference in improvement in reading ability or visual information processing scores. Conclusions: As VA increases outpatient blind rehabilitation services, LOVIT provides a model for expanding outpatient low-vision rehabilitation services for veterans at substantially lower costs than current inpatient BRC services.

P73 Comparison of the accuracy of centralized double key data entry and single key interactive data entry

Background Visual impairment is a major public health problem. Vision rehabilitation programs have the potential to restore independence and improve quality of life for persons with permanent vision loss, and few have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials. Purpose The Veterans Affairs (VA) Low Vision Intervention Trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a new outpatient low vision rehabilitation program. Methods 126 patients with moderate and severe vision loss due to macular diseases are randomized to low vision treatment in an outpatient setting or a usual care control group at two VA facilities in Hines, Illinois, and Salisbury, North Carolina. The primary outcome is the change in visual reading ability from baseline to four months measured with the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire-48 (VA LV VFQ-48). Secondary outcomes compare the mean change in visual ability measured with the VA LV VFQ-48 (overall ability, mobility, visual information processing, visual motor skills) for the treatment and control groups. Costs and cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment are evaluated. Results The low vision rehabilitation setting, use of a waiting list control group to address ethical issues, development of the treatment protocol, development of a vision function questionnaire for patients to self-report the difficulty they experience performing daily activities, and the use of Rasch analysis to develop and estimate this outcome measure are described. Limitations If the new low vision rehabilitation program is proven effective, studies will be needed to determine which of the multiple aspects of the intervention are necessary and sufficient. Conclusions The challenges of conducting clinical trials in a rehabilitation setting and use of a waiting list (deferred treatment) control group extend beyond LOVIT. The design and methods of LOVIT may be applicable to other trials of rehabilitation services and to outcomes for which reliable and valid measurement tools must be developed. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 650—660. http://ctj.sagepub.com