Clin Exp Optom . 2026 Feb 24:1-14. doi: 10.1080/08164622.2026.2631757. Online ahead of print. ABSTRACT CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Assistive smartphone apps play an integral role in supporting people with vision impairment (VI). Low vision rehabilitation (LVR) professionals need an unde…
Clin Exp Optom. 2026 Feb 24:1-14. doi: 10.1080/08164622.2026.2631757. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Assistive smartphone apps play an integral role in supporting people with vision impairment (VI). Low vision rehabilitation (LVR) professionals need an understanding of these tools to provide effective, up-to-date guidance to help patients identify options that can improve daily functioning.
BACKGROUND: Smartphones and assistive apps are widely used by people with VI, offering versatile and portable tools which support daily activities and promote independence. However, the volume and variability of apps create challenges for practitioners particularly as apps are updated frequently and artificial intelligence is gaining prominence. The purpose of this study is to describe how practitioners identify and make app recommendations.
METHODS: An international cross sectional survey of LVR professionals was conducted to identify commonly recommended visual assistive apps. Responses were categorised by country income level and professional group of respondents. A concurrent search of English-language app stores, using predefined terms was performed to identify and compare assistive app availability with practitioner recommendations.
RESULTS: App recommendation patterns varied by practitioner role and region. Optometrists frequently recommended magnifier apps, while therapists tended to suggest computer vision and sighted guide apps. Most commonly recommended apps were Seeing AI and Be My Eyes in high-income countries, and weZoom Magnifying glass and Be My Eyes in lower-income countries. Only two of ten most frequently recommended apps, Seeing AI and Be My Eyes, appeared consistently in app store searches across all four countries and both Android and iOS operating systems.
CONCLUSION: Comparing practitioner recommendations reflects potential differences in access, awareness, training, device availability, and patient needs. Understanding these insights helps to inform clinical decision-making and encourage more consistent and tailored support to diverse patient populations. Given the rapid pace of app development, regular review of the most suitable apps and clear dissemination of reliable information to practitioners are essential for informed evidence-based decision making.
PMID:41734772 | DOI:10.1080/08164622.2026.2631757