| Literature DB >> 22952945 |
Robert P Finger1, David G Kupitz, Eva Fenwick, Bharath Balasubramaniam, Ramanathan V Ramani, Frank G Holz, Clare E Gilbert.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To explore the hypothesis that sight restoring cataract surgery provided to impoverished rural communities will improve not only visual acuity and vision-related quality of life (VRQoL) but also poverty and social status.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22952945 PMCID: PMC3432104 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044268
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of the sample at baseline and 1 year follow up.
| Baseline | 1 year Follow up | p-value | ||
| n = 294 | n = 294 | BL-1 yr | ||
| Age in yrs | 60.07±8.29 | |||
| Gender | Female | 134(45.6%) | ||
| Education | No schooling | 125(42.5%) | ||
| Up to 5 yrs | 100(34.0%) | |||
| More than 5 yrs | 54(18.4%) | |||
|
| ||||
| Visual acuity in the better eye | 0.74±0.44 | 0.27±0.20 | <0.001 | |
| VA of operated eye | 1.29±0.65 | 0.34±0.29 | <0.001 | |
| VRQoL – subscales of the IND-VFQ 33, logits | ||||
| • Activity Limitation | 65±24 | 80±9 | <0.001 | |
| • Mobility | 51±23 | 70±7 | <0.001 | |
| • Psychosocial Impact | 59±21 | 79±13 | <0.001 | |
| No. of household members | 3.87±2.17 | 4.00±1.99 | .100 | |
| Working household members | 0.97±0.75 | 1.49±0.70 | <0.001 | |
|
| ||||
| Marital status | Married | 208(70.7%) | 232(78.9%) | <0.001 |
| Widowed or Single | 80(27.2%) | 49(16.7%) | ||
| Visual Impairment | 196 (66.7%) | 32 (10.9%) | <0.001 | |
| Working | 128(43.5%) | 225(76.5%) | <0.001 | |
| Occupation | Unskilled labour (daily wage) | 86(43.8%) | 177(78.7%) | .061 |
| Land owner | 16(12.5%) | 32(14.2%) | ||
| Skilled labour | 26(20.3%) | 16(7.1%) | ||
| Reason for not working# | Vision problem | 76(45.8%) | 4(5.8%) | .061 |
| Too old or retired | 32(19.3%) | 33(47.8%) | ||
| Other health problem | 29(17.5%) | 19(27.5%) | ||
| Doesn’t need to work | 21(12.7%) | 7(10.1%) | ||
| Household’s monthly income | Rs 0–1000 | 143(48.7%) | 59(20.1%) | <0.001 |
| Rs 1001–3000 | 92(31.3%) | 207(70.4%) | ||
| >Rs 3000 | 28(9.5%) | 20(6.8%) | ||
BL = baseline, VA = visual acuity, measured in LogMAR, VRQoL = vision-related quality of life, RS = Indian Rupees;
Operated eye VA at baseline was taken before cataract surgery;
question applicable to working participants only;
#question applicable to the non working participants only; p-values derived from paired sample t-tests for continuous and Wilcoxon signed rank test for categorical variables.
Impact of successful cataract surgery on marital status and measures of poverty at follow up.
| OR | 95% CI | p | ||
|
| Widowed | 1 | reference | |
| Married | 3.28 | 1.31; 8.23 |
| |
|
| No | 1 | reference | |
| Yes | 3.31 | 1.40; 7.82 |
| |
|
| 1.24 | 0.55; 2.81 | 0.603 | |
|
| > Rs 3000 | 1 | reference | |
| >1000–3000 | 0.05 | <0.01; 0.64 |
| |
| 0–1000 | 0.22 | 0.08; 0.62 |
| |
OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval; controlling for age, gender, education and household size (no. of members) in logistic regression.
Characteristics of participants who re-married and participants who were still widowed/single at 1 year (5 participants lost to follow up).
| Univariate analysis | Logistic regression | ||||||
| Remarried n = 28 | Still widowed n = 47 | p | OR | 95% CI | p | ||
| Age | 59.93±6.95 | 59.04±8.24 | 0.635 | 0.98 | 0.90; 1.07 | 0.696 | |
| Gender | Male | 9(32.1%) | 4(8.5%) |
| 0.10 | 0.01; 1.17 | 0.066 |
| Female | 19(67.9%) | 43(91.5%) | 1 | (reference) | |||
| Education | No schooling | 16(57.1%) | 37(78.7%) |
| 25.51 | 0.89; 728.45 | 0.058 |
| Up to 5 yrs | 7(25.0%) | 8(17.0%) | 15.92 | 0.57; 444.82 | 0.103 | ||
| More than 5 yrs | 4(14.3%) | 1(2.1%) | 1 | (reference) | |||
| VRQoL: | |||||||
| • Mobility | 71±7 | 70±8 | 0.779 | Not included | |||
| • Activity Limitation | 80±9 | 80±9 | 0.567 | Not included | |||
| • Psychosocial Impact | 82±13 | 79±12 | 0.322 | Not included | |||
| VI at BL | 18(64.3%) | 32(68.1%) | 0.737 | Not included | |||
| VI at 1 year | 2(7.1%) | 10(21.3%) | 0.109 | Not included | |||
| Successful cataract surgery at 1 year | 25(89.3%) | 32(68.1%) |
| 0.02 | <0.01; 0.35 |
| |
| Working at 1 yr | 23(82.1%) | 33(70.2%) | 0.254 | 0.95 | 0.17; 5.19 | 0.952 | |
| Monthly household income at 1 yr | Rs 0–1000 | 8(28.6%) | 15(31.9%) | 0.670 | 0.11 | <0.01; 8.14 | 0.310 |
| Rs 1001–3000 | 19(67.9%) | 30(63.8%) | 0.53 | 0.01; 22.99 | 0.743 | ||
| >Rs 3000 | 1(3.6%) | 1(2.1%) | 1 | (reference) | |||
| No. of household members at 1 yr | 3.79±1.79 | 3.68±2.17 | 0.830 | 1.07 | 0.67; 1.71 | 0.782 | |
| No. of working household members at 1 yr | 1.44±75 | 1.36±.74 | 0.626 | 0.59 | 0.14; 2.41 | 0.459 | |
Data reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or n(%); p-values for univariate tests derived from independent samples t-tests for continuous and Mann-Whitney U test for categorical variables; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
Factors associated with patient-reported quality of life at 1 year in generalized linear models, adjusted for age, gender and education.
| Mobility | Activity Limitation | Psychosocial Impact | ||||||||
| OR | 95% CI | p | OR | 95% CI | p | OR | 95% CI | p | ||
|
| No (ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Yes | 1375.50 | 127.17; 14877.60 |
| 30.43 | 1.51; 611.92 |
| 5033.27 | 62.86; 403027.84 |
| |
|
| No(ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Yes | 1.19 | 0.12; 11.99 | 0.884 | 4.15 | 0.22; 76.49 | 0.339 | 1.44 | 0.02;101.99 | 0.866 | |
|
| Widowed/Single (ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Married | 0.16 | 0.01; 2.32 | 0.179 | 0.34 | 0.01; 9.91 | 0.533 | 0.20 | <0.01;27.78 | 0.526 | |
|
| No improvement(ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Improvement | 1.34 | 0.24; 7.52 | 0.740 | 1.76 | 0.20; 15.49 | 0.611 | 31.32 | 1.31;751.00 |
| |
OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval, ref = reference category.