Sightsavers Logo
Research centre
  • Home
  • About us
  • Research approach
  • Research studies and publications
  • Evidence gap maps
Join in:
  • Join in: Facebook
  • Join in: Twitter
  • Join in: Instagram
  • Join in: LinkedIn
  • Join in: YouTube
  • Global
  • Close search bar
    Donate
    • Home
    • About us
    • Research approach
    • Research studies and publications
    • Evidence gap maps

    How effective is low vision service provision? A systematic review

    Methodological quality of the review: Low confidence

    Author: Binns AM, Bunce CV, Dickinson C, Harper RA, Tudor-Edwards R, Woodhouse M, Linck P, Suttie A, Jackson J, Lindsay J, Wolffsohn J, Hughes L, Margrain TH.

    Region: Not specified

    Sector: Visual impairment

    Sub-sector: Low vision; provision of service; visual impairment, quality of life

    Equity focus: None specified

    Review type: Effectiveness review

    Quantitative synthesis method: Narrative analysis

    Qualitative synthesis methods: Not applicable

    Background

    Low vision rehabilitation primarily improves the lives of people with sight loss in that it improves functional ability, as well as possibly more general aspects including quality of life and psycho-social status. Recently, different rehabilitation models have been developed to meet these goals. However, there is a limited evidence base regarding the ability of these different strategies to achieve positive outcomes in various patient groups.

    Research objectives

    To provide a critical evaluation of current literature regarding the effectiveness of different models of low vision rehabilitation service provision in persons with visual impairment.

    Main findings

    The study identified 478 potentially relevant studies. Out of these, 52 related to general effectiveness of low vision services, four to children and minority groups and two to health economics evaluations of visual rehabilitation. In all, 52 studies were included which mostly used before and after design, although they lacked a control group and it was difficult to determine the effect of the intervention in many cases. Only seven of the studies were randomized controlled trials and most of these had significant design or reporting flaws.

    The review suggests that the provision of low vision services results in an improvement in clinically measured visual function, particularly regarding reading. Low vision services are therefore regarded as an effective means of improving reading ability in patients with visual impairment. Despite this, the effect of low vision rehabilitation services on mood, vision related quality of life and health related quality of life are less clear.

    The authors suggest more high quality research to determine which types of rehabilitation services are more effective as well as the cost effectiveness of rehabilitation.

    Methodology

    The authors included studies that involved people with visual impairment, include a comparison, and be of rehabilitation service. They searched databases such as Web of Science, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, and CRD databases. They used 3 search terms: target population, intervention and study design/outcomes. The search was also supplemented by a manual search of the bibliographies of included studies as well as asking experts in the field for additional sources of information. The review was limited to available English Language studies.

    The authors conducted a narrative synthesis of findings rather than a meta-analysis or sensitivity analysis due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, their varying methodology, outcomes, follow-ups and interventions. To aid the qualitative comparison of the outcomes of different studies, the study calculated effect sizes where possible using Cohen’s d method.

    Applicability/external validity

    The authors did not discuss the applicability/external validity of the results.

    Geographic focus

    The authors were not clear whether the search was restricted to specific income settings, and did not report the geographical location of studies included in the review.

    Quality assessment

    There is low confidence in the conclusions about the effects of this study as important limitations were identified. Although the review authors conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, language bias was not avoided. It was not clear whether study selection as well as data extraction of included studies were conducted by two reviewers independently. As such, we cannot be confident that characteristics and results of included studies were reliably reported and selection bias was avoided, which impacts on the reliability/validity of this review’s findings.

    Binns, AM, Bunce, CV, Dickinson C, Harper RA, Tudor-Edwards R, Woodhouse M, Linck P, Suttie A, Jackson J, Lindsay J, Wolffsohn J, Hughes L, Margrain TH. (2012). How effective is low vision service provision? A systematic review. Survey of Ophthalmology, 57(1), pp. 34-65. Source
    Sightsavers Logo
    Research centre
    • Join in:
    • Join in: Facebook
    • Join in: X
    • Join in: Instagram
    • Join in: LinkedIn
    • Join in: YouTube

    Protecting sight, fighting disease and promoting equality for all

  • Accessibility
  • Sightsavers homepage
  • Our policies
  • Media centre
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Cookies and privacy Terms and conditions Modern slavery statement Safeguarding

    © 2025 by Sightsavers, Inc., Business Address for all correspondence: One Boston Place, Suite 2600, Boston, MA 02108.

    Our website uses cookies

    To make sure you have a great experience on our site, we’d like your consent to use cookies. These will collect anonymous statistics to personalise your experience.

    Manage preferences

    You have the option to enable non-essential cookies, which will help us enhance your experience and improve our website.

    Essential cookiesAlways on

    These enable our site to work correctly, for example by storing page settings. You can disable these by changing your browser settings, but some parts of our website will not work as expected.

    Analytics cookies

    To improve our website, we’d like to collect anonymous data about how you use the site, such as which pages you read, the device you’re using, and whether your visit includes a donation. This is completely anonymous, and is never used to profile individual visitors.

    Advertising cookies

    To raise awareness about our work, we’d like to show you Sightsavers adverts as you browse the web. By accepting these cookies, our advertising partners may use anonymous information to show you our adverts on other websites you visit. If you do not enable advertising cookies, you will still see adverts on other websites, but they may be less relevant to you. For info, see the Google Ads privacy policy.