A longitudinal evaluation of the acceptability and impact of a diet diary app for older adults with age-related macular degeneration

Ongoing advances in technology are increasing the scope for enhancing and supporting older adults’ daily living. The digital divide between older and younger adults raises concerns, however, about the suitability of technological solutions for older adults, especially for those with impairments. Taking older adults with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) as a case study, we used user-centred and participatory design approaches to develop an assistive mobile app for self-monitoring their intake of food [12,13]. In this paper we report on findings of a longitudinal field evaluation of our app that was conducted to investigate how it was received and adopted by older adults with AMD and its impact on their lives. Demonstrating the benefit of applying inclusive design methods for technology for older adults, our findings reveal how the use of the app raises participants’ awareness and facilitates self-monitoring of diet, encourages positive (diet) behaviour change, and encourages learning.

Evaluation of low vision services on the quality of life of individuals with age-related macular degeneration

Background: Age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) is a major cause of irreversible visual loss in the elderly and a significant threat to their quality of life. Although low vision services often improve the functional outcomes of individuals with macular disease, it remains unclear whether or not they have any impact on quality of life. The principal aim of this study was to determine the effect of a hospital-based low vision clinic on the quality of life of individuals with ARMD. Methods: Forty patients with ARMD attended the low vision clinic at Milton Keynes University Hospital. Quality of life was measured with the vision-specific Low Vision Quality of Life (LVQOL) questionnaire and the general health EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Measures were completed at baseline (time zero, T0), and at three- (T3) and six-month (T6) follow-up visits. Results: The near visual acuity of individuals attending the low vision clinic for the first time improved significantly between visits T0 and T3 (p=0.005), reflecting the practiced use of their newly-dispensed low vision aids. As expected, there was no significant change in near acuity over this time period for existing patients. For both new and existing patients, a significant increase in LVQOL score was evident between visits T0 and T3, with a further significant improvement between T3 and T6. Similarly, there was a significant decrease in EQ-5D-5L questionnaire scores between visits T0 and T6. Conclusions: The higher LVQOL scores obtained at the end of the study period (T6) provide evidence that low vision services at Milton Keynes University Hospital served to improve patient quality of life. The reduction in EQ-5D-5L scores over the same time period suggests that low vision services also provide for an improvement in general health-related quality of life. Impact: The findings support the cause of low vision services to improve not only the vision and functional outcomes of individuals with macular disease but also their quality of life. Moreover, the findings suggest that a more efficient allocation of resources at low vision clinics may be possible through the standardisation of patient follow-up frequency.

Improved inference in the evaluation of mutual fund performance using bootstrap methods

Two new methodologies are introduced to improve inference in the evaluation of mutual fund performance against benchmarks. First, the benchmark models are estimated using panel methods with both fund and time effects. Second, the non-normality of individual mutual fund returns is accounted for by using panel bootstrap methods. We also augment the standard benchmark factors with fund-specific characteristics, such as fund size. Using a dataset of UK equity mutual fund returns, we find that fund size has a negative effect on the average fund manager’s benchmark-adjusted performance. Further, when we allow for time effects and the non-normality of fund returns, we find that there is no evidence that even the best performing fund managers can significantly out-perform the augmented benchmarks after fund management charges are taken into account.