S Thiagalingam1, R G Cumming, P Mitchell. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sydney (Centre for Vision Research, Westmead Hospital), Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: To identify characteristics of people with clinically relevant undercorrected refractive errors. METHODS: The Blue Mountains Eye Study was a population based survey of 3654 Australians aged 49-97 years. Examinations included a standardised refraction and measurement of presenting and best corrected visual acuity. Clinically relevant undercorrected refractive error was defined as improvement of >/=10 letters (2+ lines on the logMAR chart) in subjects with presenting acuity 6/9 or worse. Associations with a range of demographic and ocular variables were explored, adjusting for age and sex, presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Undercorrected refractive error was present in 814/3654 subjects (10.2%). Older age (p <0.001), hyperopia (OR 1.45, CI 1.15 to 1.83), longer interval from last eye examination (p <0.001), past occupation as tradesperson (OR 1.64, 1.13 to 3.29) or labourer (OR 2.00, CI 1.39 to 2.89), receipt of government pension (OR 1.47, CI 1.12 to 1.94), and living alone (OR 1.34, CI 1.05 to 1.72) were all associated with undercorrected refractive error. Past or current use of distance glasses (OR 0.25, CI 0.20 to 0.32) and driving (OR 0.67, CI 0.52 to 0.86) were associated with a lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age and measures of socioeconomic disadvantage and isolation were found to predict undercorrected refractive error. Given the documented impacts from correctable visual impairment, these findings suggest a need to target education and eye care services.
AIMS: To identify characteristics of people with clinically relevant undercorrected refractive errors. METHODS: The Blue Mountains Eye Study was a population based survey of 3654 Australians aged 49-97 years. Examinations included a standardised refraction and measurement of presenting and best corrected visual acuity. Clinically relevant undercorrected refractive error was defined as improvement of >/=10 letters (2+ lines on the logMAR chart) in subjects with presenting acuity 6/9 or worse. Associations with a range of demographic and ocular variables were explored, adjusting for age and sex, presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Undercorrected refractive error was present in 814/3654 subjects (10.2%). Older age (p <0.001), hyperopia (OR 1.45, CI 1.15 to 1.83), longer interval from last eye examination (p <0.001), past occupation as tradesperson (OR 1.64, 1.13 to 3.29) or labourer (OR 2.00, CI 1.39 to 2.89), receipt of government pension (OR 1.47, CI 1.12 to 1.94), and living alone (OR 1.34, CI 1.05 to 1.72) were all associated with undercorrected refractive error. Past or current use of distance glasses (OR 0.25, CI 0.20 to 0.32) and driving (OR 0.67, CI 0.52 to 0.86) were associated with a lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age and measures of socioeconomic disadvantage and isolation were found to predict undercorrected refractive error. Given the documented impacts from correctable visual impairment, these findings suggest a need to target education and eye care services.
Authors: J A Grisso; J L Kelsey; B L Strom; G Y Chiu; G Maislin; L A O'Brien; S Hoffman; F Kaplan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-05-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rohit Varma; Michelle Y Wang; Mei Ying-Lai; Jill Donofrio; Stanley P Azen Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-04-25 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Diana E Fisher; Sandi Shrager; Steven J Shea; Gregory L Burke; Ronald Klein; Tien Y Wong; Barbara E Klein; Mary Frances Cotch Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Chiu-Fang Chou; Mary Frances Cotch; Susan Vitale; Xinzhi Zhang; Ronald Klein; David S Friedman; Barbara E K Klein; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Justin C Sherwin; Anthony P Khawaja; David Broadway; Robert Luben; Shabina Hayat; Nichola Dalzell; Nicholas J Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Paul J Foster Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 4.638