PURPOSE: To examine the association between self-rated vision and distance visual acuity by race and other factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis within a longitudinal, population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: Two thousand five hundred twenty individuals, 65 to 84 years of age, including 666 black participants and 1854 white participants. METHODS: All participants reported their self-rated vision score. Binocular distance visual acuity was assessed. Based on the level of visual acuity and the self-reported vision score, participants were placed into concordant and discrepant groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the characteristics associated with concordant and discrepant groups. RESULTS: Black participants were more likely to be represented in the discordant group that reported good vision but had acuity worse than 20/40. In the multivariate analysis, a per-year decrement in years of education received increased the odds of being in both discrepant groups, one that reported good vision but had a visual acuity worse than 20/40 (odds ratio, 1.21; P<0.0001) and the other discrepant group that reported bad vision but had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better (odds ratio, 1.04; P<0.0001). A per-year decrement in years of education received also seemed to explain the excess risk of black race in the discrepant group that reported good vision but had a visual acuity worse than 20/40. CONCLUSIONS: Given the socioeconomically driven discrepancies in self-reported vision status, self-reported vision status should be used cautiously in surveillance surveys, especially when assessing vision inequalities between socioeconomic groups. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
PURPOSE: To examine the association between self-rated vision and distance visual acuity by race and other factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis within a longitudinal, population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: Two thousand five hundred twenty individuals, 65 to 84 years of age, including 666 black participants and 1854 white participants. METHODS: All participants reported their self-rated vision score. Binocular distance visual acuity was assessed. Based on the level of visual acuity and the self-reported vision score, participants were placed into concordant and discrepant groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the characteristics associated with concordant and discrepant groups. RESULTS: Black participants were more likely to be represented in the discordant group that reported good vision but had acuity worse than 20/40. In the multivariate analysis, a per-year decrement in years of education received increased the odds of being in both discrepant groups, one that reported good vision but had a visual acuity worse than 20/40 (odds ratio, 1.21; P<0.0001) and the other discrepant group that reported bad vision but had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better (odds ratio, 1.04; P<0.0001). A per-year decrement in years of education received also seemed to explain the excess risk of black race in the discrepant group that reported good vision but had a visual acuity worse than 20/40. CONCLUSIONS: Given the socioeconomically driven discrepancies in self-reported vision status, self-reported vision status should be used cautiously in surveillance surveys, especially when assessing vision inequalities between socioeconomic groups. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
Authors: Stephen B Thomas; Veronica V Sansing; Andrew Davis; Michelle Magee; Elaine Massaro; V S Srinivas; Tarek Helmy; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Maria Mori Brooks Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: G S Rubin; S K West; B Muñoz; K Bandeen-Roche; S Zeger; O Schein; L P Fried Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: John E Crews; Chiu-Fang Chou; Xinzhi Zhang; Matthew M Zack; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Mengyao Hu; Vicki A Freedman; Joshua R Ehrlich; Nicholas S Reed; Catherine Billington; Judith D Kasper Journal: J Surv Stat Methodol Date: 2021-02-14