Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2017
Adjustment to acquired vision loss in adults presenting for visual disability certification.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nakade Aditya, Rohatgi Jolly, Bhatia Manjeet S, Dhaliwal Upreet
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Rehabilitation of the visually disabled depends on how they adjust to loss; understanding contributing factors may help in effective rehabilitation.
AIM: The aim of this study is to assess adjustment to acquired vision loss in adults.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This observational study, conducted in the Department of Ophthalmology at a tertiary-level teaching hospital, included thirty persons (25-65 years) with <6/60 in the better eye, and vision loss since ≥6-months.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Age, gender, rural/urban residence, education, current occupation, binocular distance vision, adjustment (Acceptance and Self-Worth Adjustment Scale), depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale), social support (Duke Social Support and Stress Scale), and personality (10-item Personality Inventory scale) was recorded.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: To determine their effect on adjustment, Student's t-test was used for categorical variables, Pearson's correlation for age, and Spearman's correlation for depression, personality trait and social support and stress.
RESULTS: Of 30 persons recruited, 24 were men (80%); 24 lived in urban areas (80%); 9 were employed (30%); and 14 (46.6%) had studied < Class 3. Adjustment was low (range: 33%-60%; mean: 43.6 ± 5.73). Reported support was low (median: 27.2; interquartile range [IQR]: 18.1-36.3); reported stress was low (median: 0.09; IQR: 0-18.1). Predominant personality traits (max score 14) were "Agreeableness" (average 12.0 ± 1.68) and "Conscientiousness" (average 11.3 ± 2.12). Emotional stability (average 9.2 ± 2.53) was less prominent. Depression score ranged from 17 to 50 (average 31.6 ± 6.01). The factors studied did not influence adjustment.
CONCLUSIONS: Although adjustment did not vary with factors studied, all patients were depressed. Since perceived support and emotional stability was low, attention could be directed to support networks. Training patients in handling emotions, and training family members to respond to emotional needs of persons with visual disability, might contribute to reducing stress and depression.
AIM: The aim of this study is to assess adjustment to acquired vision loss in adults.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This observational study, conducted in the Department of Ophthalmology at a tertiary-level teaching hospital, included thirty persons (25-65 years) with <6/60 in the better eye, and vision loss since ≥6-months.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Age, gender, rural/urban residence, education, current occupation, binocular distance vision, adjustment (Acceptance and Self-Worth Adjustment Scale), depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale), social support (Duke Social Support and Stress Scale), and personality (10-item Personality Inventory scale) was recorded.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: To determine their effect on adjustment, Student's t-test was used for categorical variables, Pearson's correlation for age, and Spearman's correlation for depression, personality trait and social support and stress.
RESULTS: Of 30 persons recruited, 24 were men (80%); 24 lived in urban areas (80%); 9 were employed (30%); and 14 (46.6%) had studied < Class 3. Adjustment was low (range: 33%-60%; mean: 43.6 ± 5.73). Reported support was low (median: 27.2; interquartile range [IQR]: 18.1-36.3); reported stress was low (median: 0.09; IQR: 0-18.1). Predominant personality traits (max score 14) were "Agreeableness" (average 12.0 ± 1.68) and "Conscientiousness" (average 11.3 ± 2.12). Emotional stability (average 9.2 ± 2.53) was less prominent. Depression score ranged from 17 to 50 (average 31.6 ± 6.01). The factors studied did not influence adjustment.
CONCLUSIONS: Although adjustment did not vary with factors studied, all patients were depressed. Since perceived support and emotional stability was low, attention could be directed to support networks. Training patients in handling emotions, and training family members to respond to emotional needs of persons with visual disability, might contribute to reducing stress and depression.