目的：评估低视力青少年使用电子助视器对其阅读速度的影响。

方法：在泉州市盲校筛查 10 名使用光学助视器有阅读能力的低视力青少年学生进行屈光矫正和常规外眼、内眼检查，分别测量其使用各种光学助视器及电子助视器阅读5号字卡的阅读速度。

结果：10 名低视力青少年学生在使用光学助视器后阅读速度为 (18.50±6.54) 字/分，使用电子助视器后阅读速度为 (34.36±5.06) 字/分，两组比较差异有统计学意义 (P < 0.05)。低视力青少年的近视力与阅读速度无关 (P > 0.05)。

结论：使用电子助视器较光学助视器可以明显提高低视力青少年的阅读速度，不同病因所致的低视力青少年其近视力与阅读速度无关。

Purpose: To evaluate the reading speed of adolescents with different causes of low vision using electronic visual aids.
Methods: The screening of 10 young students from Quanzhou Blind School who could read Chinese N5 print by different optical aids. After refractive correction and ophthalmic examination, the reading speeds with Chinese N5 print were measured using various optical and electronic visual aids.
Results: The reading speed of (34.36 ± 5.06) words/min by electronic visual aids performed faster than the reading speed of (18.50 ± 6.54) words/min by optical visual aids in 10 young students with low vision (P < 0.05). The reading speed of young people with low vision due to different causes had no direct linear correlation with their near visual acuity (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: The electronic visual aids could more significantly improve the reading speed of young people with low vision than the optical visual aids did. The reading speed of young people with low vision due to different causes was not related to their near visual acuity.

目的：调查引导式教育训练对视力障碍学生生活质量的影响。方法：前瞻性随机对照临床研究。选取2020年在泉州特殊教育学校就读视力障碍学生，按照入组条件随机分为引导式教育训练组和对照组，引导式教育训练组进行引导式教育训练，对照组进行常规康复训练。采用中文版低视力者生活质量量表(Chinese-version low vision quality of life questionnaire，CLVQOL)评估视力障碍学生的基线和训练3个月的生活质量，并进行比较分析。结果：72例视力障碍学生全部完成了基线和随访时的生活质量问卷调查。进行基线检查时，各组CLVQOL评分总分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3个月后，各组CLVQOL评分总分均增加，引导式教育训练组从基线59(48.5，80.5)上升到105(97.5，119.5)，差异有统计学意义(Z=?4.781，P<0.001)；对照组从基线69(56，85)上升到106(80，112)，差异有统计学意义(Z=?4.438，P<0.001)；引导式教育训练组在CLVQOL评分总分(P=0.021)及阅读和精细工作维度(P=0.004)、日常生活能力维度(P=0.003)的评分差值均高于对照组。结论：引导式教育训练是一种重要的低视力康复训练方法，可以明显提高患者的生活质量。

Objective: To investigate the effect of conductive education training on the quality of life in visually impaired students. Methods: It was a prospective randomized controlled trial. The visual impairment students who had registered in Quanzhou Special Education School in 2020 were selected and randomly divided into two groups: conductive education training group and control group. The conductive education training group received conductive education training, while the control group received routine rehabilitation training. Chinese version low vision quality of life questionnaire (CLVQOL) was used to assess the quality of life of low vision students at baseline and 3 months after training, and comparative analysis was conducted. Results: All 72 students with visual impairment completed CLVQOL surveys. At baseline, there was no significant difference in total CLVQOL scores between groups. After 3 months, overall CLVQOL scores increased in both groups, from baseline 59 (48.5, 80.5) to 105 (97.5, 119.5) in the conductive education group (Z=-4.781, P<0.001), and 69 (56, 85) to 106 (80, 112) in the control group (Z=-4.438, P<0.001). The total score of CLVQOL (P=0.021), reading and fine work subscale (P=0.004), and daily activities subscale (P<0.003) in the conductive education training group were higher than those in the control group. Conclusion: Conductive education training is an important method of low vision rehabilitation training, which can significantly improve the quality of life of patients.

目的：调查引导式教育训练对视力障碍学生生活质量的影响。方法：前瞻性随机对照临床研究。选取2020年在泉州特殊教育学校就读视力障碍学生，按照入组条件随机分为引导式教育训练组和对照组，引导式教育训练组进行引导式教育训练，对照组进行常规康复训练。采用中文版低视力者生活质量量表(Chinese-version low vision quality of life questionnaire，CLVQOL)评估视力障碍学生的基线和训练3个月的生活质量，并进行比较分析。结果：72例视力障碍学生全部完成了基线和随访时的生活质量问卷调查。进行基线检查时，各组CLVQOL评分总分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3个月后，各组CLVQOL评分总分均增加，引导式教育训练组从基线59(48.5，80.5)上升到105(97.5，119.5)，差异有统计学意义(Z=-4.781，P<0.001)；对照组从基线69(56，85)上升到106(80，112)，差异有统计学意义(Z=-4.438，P<0.001)；引导式教育训练组在CLVQOL评分总分(P=0.021)及阅读和精细工作维度(P=0.004)、日常生活能力维度(P=0.003)的评分差值均高于对照组。结论：引导式教育训练是一种重要的低视力康复训练方法，可以明显提高患者的生活质量。

Objective: To investigate the effect of conductive education training on the quality of life in visually impaired students. Methods: It was a prospective randomized controlled trial. The visual impairment students who had registered in Quanzhou Special Education School in 2020 were selected and randomly divided into two groups: conductive education training group and control group. The conductive education training group received conductive education training, while the control group received routine rehabilitation training. Chinese version low vision quality of life questionnaire (CLVQOL) was used to assess the quality of life of low vision students at baseline and 3 months after training, and comparative analysis was conducted. Results: All 72 students with visual impairment completed CLVQOL surveys. At baseline, there was no significant difference in total CLVQOL scores between groups. After 3 months, overall CLVQOL scores increased in both groups, from baseline 59 (48.5, 80.5) to 105 (97.5, 119.5) in the conductive education group (Z=?4.781, P<0.001), and 69 (56, 85) to 106 (80, 112) in the control group (Z=?4.438, P<0.001). The total score of CLVQOL (P=0.021), reading and fine work subscale (P=0.004), and daily activities subscale (P<0.003) in the conductive education training group were higher than those in the control group. Conclusion: Conductive education training is an important method of low vision rehabilitation training, which can significantly improve the quality of life of patients.