PURPOSE: To evaluate whether socio-economic deprivation is associated with ocular axial length and refractive error in a British cohort. METHODS: The study population consisted of 7,652 individuals who provided data to the prospective cataract database at Portsmouth Eye unit, UK over a 4 year period (January 2004 to June 2008). Indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) scores measuring both social and economic domains for each patient's locality were calculated. The association of these measures of deprivation with axial length and refractive error (astigmatic and spherical) were evaluated using regression analyses after adjusting for age and sex. RESULTS: Socio-economically deprived areas (higher IMD scores) were inversely associated with axial lengths and astigmatic refraction. After controlling for age and sex, an inverse linear association was observed between axial length and IMD scores (-0.24 mm in highest quintile compared to lowest; 95% confidence intervals: -0.33 to -0.15) and between astigmatic refraction and IMD scores (-0.12 dioptres in highest quintile compared to lowest; 95% confidence intervals: -0.21 to -0.03). There was no association between spherical refraction and IMD scores. CONCLUSIONS: Axial length and astigmatic refraction were inversely associated with socio-economic deprivation in this population. Identification of the environmental exposures involved may identify reversible risk factors for impaired vision.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether socio-economic deprivation is associated with ocular axial length and refractive error in a British cohort. METHODS: The study population consisted of 7,652 individuals who provided data to the prospective cataract database at Portsmouth Eye unit, UK over a 4 year period (January 2004 to June 2008). Indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) scores measuring both social and economic domains for each patient's locality were calculated. The association of these measures of deprivation with axial length and refractive error (astigmatic and spherical) were evaluated using regression analyses after adjusting for age and sex. RESULTS: Socio-economically deprived areas (higher IMD scores) were inversely associated with axial lengths and astigmatic refraction. After controlling for age and sex, an inverse linear association was observed between axial length and IMD scores (-0.24 mm in highest quintile compared to lowest; 95% confidence intervals: -0.33 to -0.15) and between astigmatic refraction and IMD scores (-0.12 dioptres in highest quintile compared to lowest; 95% confidence intervals: -0.21 to -0.03). There was no association between spherical refraction and IMD scores. CONCLUSIONS: Axial length and astigmatic refraction were inversely associated with socio-economic deprivation in this population. Identification of the environmental exposures involved may identify reversible risk factors for impaired vision.