Az gören öğrencilerde el-göz koordinasyonu ve günlük yaşam aktiviteleri eğitiminin yaşam kalitesi ve fonksiyonel görmeye etkisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı az gören öğrencilerde el-göz koordinasyonu ve günlük yaşam aktiviteleri eğitiminin yaşam kalitesi ve fonksiyonel görmeye etkisini araştırmaktı. Yöntem: Bu çalışma Ankara’da bulunan görme engelliler okulunda okuyan, yaş ortalaması 10.88±2.17 yıl olan 40 çocuğu içermektedir. Öğrencilere Az görenler Yaşam Kalite Anketi ve LV-Prasad Fonksiyonel Görme Anketi uygulanmıştır. Öğrenciler eğitim öncesi görme keskinlik seviyelerine göre uygulanan anketlerde belirttikleri problemlere göre el-göz koordinasyonu ve günlük yaşam aktivitelerine yönelik okul ortamlarında bireysel olarak eğitim aldılar. Anketler eğitim sonrasında tekrarlandı. Bulgular: Eğitim öncesi ve sonrası anket puanları karşılaştırıldığında yaşam kalitesine ait alt testlerden sadece okuma ve ince becerilerin bulunduğu alt testte fark bulundu (p0.05). Tartışma: Yaşam kalitesi ve fonksiyonel görme el-göz koordinasyonu ve günlük yaşam aktiviteleri dışında farklı parametrelere bağlıdır. Bu nedenle eğitim programında kullanılan parametrelere ek olarak duyu fonksiyonlarından kinestezi, fiziksel fonksiyonlardan mobilite, kognitif fonksiyonlardan olan oryantasyon ve iletişim ve akademik becerileri içeren programın yaşam kalitesine ve fonksiyonel görmeye pozitif etkisi olacağı düşünülmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Günlük yaşam aktiviteleri, Az gören, Yaşam kalitesi

Effect of hand-eye coordination and daily living activities’training on quality of life and functional vision in students with low vision

Öz

Purpose: The study aimed to evaluate the effect of hand-eye coordination and daily living activities’ training on quality of life and functional vision for students with low vision. Methods: The study included 40 students with low vision studying in visual impairment schools in Ankara, and their mean age was 10.88±2.17 years. The Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire and LV Prasad- Functional Vision Questionnaire were applied to the students. Students were trained individually according to their visual acuity levels for hand-eye coordination and daily living activities in their schools according to the problems that they mentioned on questionnaires applied before intervention. All questionnaires were repeated after the intervention. Results: When compared with the questionnaire results before and after intervention, only reading and fine work sections of the subtitles of the quality of life questionnaire were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05). Functional vision was not differed significantly after the intervention (p>0.05). Conclusion: Quality of life and functional vision depend on different parameters besides the hand-eye coordination and daily living activities. Therefore, we believed that in addition to the program used in the training parameters; the intervention include the kinesthesia as sensory function, mobility as a physical function, orientation and communication as a cognitive function and academic skills training can have a positive effect on the quality of life and functional vision

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Activities of daily living, Low vision, Quality of life

Kaynakça

1. 1. Lewis S, Iselin SA. A comparison of the independent living skills of primary students with visual impairments and their sighted peers: A pilot study. J Visual Impair Blin. 2002;96:335-344.
2. 2. Duffy MA, Huebner KM, Wormsley DP. Activities of Daily Living and Individuals with Low Vision. In: Scheiman M, editor. Understanding and Managing Vision Deficits: A Guide for Occupational Therapists. 2 ed. NJ: SLACK Incorporated; 2002. p. 289- 304.
3. 3. Keeffe J. Chilhood vision impairments. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:728- 729.
4. 4. Atasavun Uysal S, Duger T. Visual perception training on social skills and activity performance in low-vision children. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19:33-41.
5. 5. Atasavun Uysal S, Duger T. Writing and reading training effects on font type and size preferences by students with low vision. Percept Motor Skill. 2012;114:837-846.
6. 6. Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL. Design of the low vision quality-of-life questionnaire (LVQOL) and measuring the outcome of low-vision rehabilitation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:793- 802.
7. 7. Ellwein LB, Fletcher A, Negrel AD et al. Quality of life assessment in blindness prevention interventions. Int Ophthalmol. 1994;18:263-268.
8. 8. Hinds A, Sinclair A, Park J, et al. Impact of an interdisciplinary low vision service on the quality of life of low vision patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:1391-1396.

9. 9. du Toit R, Palagyi A, Ramke J, Brian G, Lamoureux EL. Development and validation of a vision-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for Timor-Leste. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 2008;49:4284-4289.
10. 10. Cochrane G, Lamoureux E, Keeffe J. Defining the content for a new quality of life questionnaire for students with low vision (the Impact of Vision Impairment on Children: IVI_C). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008;15:114- 120.
11. 11. Law M, Baum C, Dunn W. Challenges and strategies in applying an occupational performance measurement approach. 2nd ed. Law M, Baum C, Dunn W, Eds. NJ: SLACK Incorporated; 2005. 375-381.
12. 12. Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Steinmann WC. Assessment of function related to vision (AFREV). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2006;13:67- 80.
13. 13. Gothwal VK, Lovie-Kitchin JE, Nutheti R. The development of the LV Prasad-Functional Vision Questionnaire: a measure of functional vision performance of visually impaired children. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 2003;44:4131- 4139.
14. 14. Massof RW, Ahmadian L. What do different visual function questionnaires measure? Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007;14:198-204.
15. 15. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. B World Health Organ. 2004;82:844-451.
16. 16. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariott SP. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. B World Health Organ. 2008;86:63-70.
17. 17. Hyvarinen L. Visual perception in 'low vision'. Perception. 1999;28:1533-1537.
18. 18. Walter C, Althouse R, Humble H, et al. Vision rehabilitation: recipients' perceived efficacy of rehabilitation. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007;14:103-111.
19. 19. Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL, Watt NA. Implementation methods for vision related quality of life questionnaires. Br Jophthalmol. 2000;84:1035-1040.
20. 20. Ganesh S, Sethi S, Srivastav S, et al. Impact of low vision rehabilitation on functional vision performance of children with visual impairment. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2013;6:170- 174.