PURPOSE: To determine the age- and sex-specific prevalence and risk indicators of uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need among a population-based sample of Latino adults. METHODS: Self-identified Latinos 40 years of age and older (n = 6129) from six census tracts in La Puente, California, underwent a complete ophthalmic examination, and a home-administered questionnaire provided self-reported data on potential risk indicators. Uncorrected refractive error was defined as a >or=2-line improvement with refraction in the better seeing eye. Unmet refractive need was defined as having <20/40 visual acuity in the better seeing eye and achieving >or=20/40 after refraction (definition 1) or having <20/40 visual acuity in the better seeing eye and achieving a >or=2-line improvement with refraction (definition 2). Sex- and age-specific prevalence and significant risk indicators for uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need were calculated. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of uncorrected refractive error was 15.1% (n = 926). The overall prevalence of unmet refractive need was 8.9% (n = 213, definition 1) and 9.6% (n = 218, definition 2). The prevalence of uncorrected refractive error and either definition of unmet refractive need increased with age (P < 0.0001). No sex-related difference was present. Older age, <12 years of education, and lack of health insurance were significant independent risk indicators for uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the prevalence of uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need is high in Latinos of primarily Mexican ancestry. Better education and access to care in older Latinos are likely to decrease the burden of uncorrected refractive error in Latinos.
PURPOSE: To determine the age- and sex-specific prevalence and risk indicators of uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need among a population-based sample of Latino adults. METHODS: Self-identified Latinos 40 years of age and older (n = 6129) from six census tracts in La Puente, California, underwent a complete ophthalmic examination, and a home-administered questionnaire provided self-reported data on potential risk indicators. Uncorrected refractive error was defined as a >or=2-line improvement with refraction in the better seeing eye. Unmet refractive need was defined as having <20/40 visual acuity in the better seeing eye and achieving >or=20/40 after refraction (definition 1) or having <20/40 visual acuity in the better seeing eye and achieving a >or=2-line improvement with refraction (definition 2). Sex- and age-specific prevalence and significant risk indicators for uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need were calculated. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of uncorrected refractive error was 15.1% (n = 926). The overall prevalence of unmet refractive need was 8.9% (n = 213, definition 1) and 9.6% (n = 218, definition 2). The prevalence of uncorrected refractive error and either definition of unmet refractive need increased with age (P < 0.0001). No sex-related difference was present. Older age, <12 years of education, and lack of health insurance were significant independent risk indicators for uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the prevalence of uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need is high in Latinos of primarily Mexican ancestry. Better education and access to care in older Latinos are likely to decrease the burden of uncorrected refractive error in Latinos.
Authors: Rohit Varma; Sylvia H Paz; Stanley P Azen; Ronald Klein; Denise Globe; Mina Torres; Chrisandra Shufelt; Susan Preston-Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 12.079
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