PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of refractive error (RE), the proportion of those with uncorrected RE, and factors associated with uncorrected RE in Latino adults. DESIGN: Population-based, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 4509 Latinos aged ≥40 years from Arizona with both ophthalmic evaluation and questionnaire. METHODS: A case of RE was defined as a subject wearing prescription glasses for distance vision whose presenting visual acuity (PVA) was ≥20/25, or a subject with PVA <20/25 in at least 1 eye who improved ≥2 lines after subjective refraction and whose refractive correction met these cutoffs: sphere < -0.5 diopters (D) or >1.0 D or cylinder ≥ +1.0 D. Among those with RE, those who on refraction achieved ≥2 line improvement in at least 1 eye (definition 1) or in both eyes (definition 2) were classified as uncorrected RE. A questionnaire on access to care, acculturation, and socioeconomic variables was used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of RE and proportion of uncorrected RE. RESULTS: The prevalence of RE was 64% in at least 1 eye and 51% in both eyes. Of participants with RE in at least 1 eye, 35% have uncorrected RE. Of those with RE in both eyes, 19% have uncorrected RE. Compared with participants with corrected RE, those with uncorrected RE in at least 1 eye were more likely to have lower levels of acculturation (odds ratio [OR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.4 per unit decrease) and education (OR 1.6 for ≤6 years vs. >12 years; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2). Uncorrected RE was also associated with not having insurance (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6), with a low family income (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7 for <$20,000/year), and with time since last health care visit (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7 for >1 year vs. <6 months). CONCLUSIONS: In our sample of Latinos, the proportion of uncorrected RE is high and suggests that one third of those with RE may benefit from new glasses. Indices of marginalization are associated with uncorrected RE and could be targeted for future interventions.
PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of refractive error (RE), the proportion of those with uncorrected RE, and factors associated with uncorrected RE in Latino adults. DESIGN: Population-based, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 4509 Latinos aged ≥40 years from Arizona with both ophthalmic evaluation and questionnaire. METHODS: A case of RE was defined as a subject wearing prescription glasses for distance vision whose presenting visual acuity (PVA) was ≥20/25, or a subject with PVA <20/25 in at least 1 eye who improved ≥2 lines after subjective refraction and whose refractive correction met these cutoffs: sphere < -0.5 diopters (D) or >1.0 D or cylinder ≥ +1.0 D. Among those with RE, those who on refraction achieved ≥2 line improvement in at least 1 eye (definition 1) or in both eyes (definition 2) were classified as uncorrected RE. A questionnaire on access to care, acculturation, and socioeconomic variables was used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of RE and proportion of uncorrected RE. RESULTS: The prevalence of RE was 64% in at least 1 eye and 51% in both eyes. Of participants with RE in at least 1 eye, 35% have uncorrected RE. Of those with RE in both eyes, 19% have uncorrected RE. Compared with participants with corrected RE, those with uncorrected RE in at least 1 eye were more likely to have lower levels of acculturation (odds ratio [OR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.4 per unit decrease) and education (OR 1.6 for ≤6 years vs. >12 years; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2). Uncorrected RE was also associated with not having insurance (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6), with a low family income (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7 for <$20,000/year), and with time since last health care visit (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7 for >1 year vs. <6 months). CONCLUSIONS: In our sample of Latinos, the proportion of uncorrected RE is high and suggests that one third of those with RE may benefit from new glasses. Indices of marginalization are associated with uncorrected RE and could be targeted for future interventions.
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: Ecosse L Lamoureux; Seang-Mei Saw; Julian Thumboo; Hwee Lin Wee; Tin Aung; Paul Mitchell; Tien Y Wong Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.799
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
Authors: Mar Seguí-Crespo; Natalia Cantó-Sancho; Alison Reid; José Miguel Martínez; Elena Ronda-Pérez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 3.390