English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Purpose  To determine the incremental cost‐effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p‐ EVES ) devices compared with optical low vision aids ( LVA s), for improving near vision visual function, quality of life and well‐being of people with a visual impairment.    Methods  An  AB / BA  randomized crossover trial design was used. Eighty‐two participants completed the study. Participants were current users of optical  LVA s who had not tried a p‐ EVES  device before and had a stable visual impairment. The trial intervention was the addition of a p‐ EVES  device to the participant's existing optical  LVA (s) for 2 months, and the control intervention was optical  LVA  use only, for 2 months. Cost‐effectiveness and cost‐utility analyses were conducted from a societal perspective.    Results  The mean cost of the p‐ EVES  intervention was £448. Carer costs were £30 (4.46 hr) less for the p‐ EVES  intervention compared with the  LVA  only control. The mean difference in total costs was £417. Bootstrapping gave an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £736 (95%  CI  £481 to £1525) for a 7% improvement in near vision visual function. Cost per quality‐adjusted life year ( QALY ) ranged from £56 991 (lower 95%  CI  = £19 801) to £66 490 (lower 95%  CI  = £23 055). Sensitivity analysis varying the commercial price of the p‐ EVES  device reduced ICERs by up to 75%, with cost per  QALY s falling below £30 000.    Conclusion  Portable electronic vision enhancement system (p‐ EVES ) devices are likely to be a cost‐effective use of healthcare resources for improving near vision visual function, but this does not translate into cost‐effective improvements in quality of life, capability or well‐being.

acta ophthalmologica

Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial