PURPOSE: We attempt to understand the determinants of self-rated vision status by examining associations with vision tests, self-reported visual function, demographic, and health-status characteristics. METHODS: Participants included 2467 individuals, aged 65 to 84 years, in a longitudinal, population-based cohort study. Participants rated their vision status from 0 to 10. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields were assessed. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS) questionnaire was administered. Multivariate ordinal and multinomial logistic-regression models examined the association of demographic, health-status characteristics, vision tests, and ADVS subscales with self-rated vision status score. Odds ratios described the association of these characteristics with reporting better vision status. RESULTS: Better visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields were associated with increased odds of reporting better vision status. Among the vision tests, a 2-line increase in visual acuity was most likely to result in an individual reporting better vision status (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.70). A 5-point increase in the near vision and far vision ADVS subscale scores was associated with increased odds of reporting good versus poor vision status. A 5-point increase in the near vision subscale was most likely to result in an individual reporting good versus poor vision status (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: Self-rated vision status is a multidimensional measure. Near-vision visual function, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity are important determinants of self-rated vision status in an elderly population. This understanding may improve the ability of eye care providers to maximize self-rated vision status among their patients.
PURPOSE: We attempt to understand the determinants of self-rated vision status by examining associations with vision tests, self-reported visual function, demographic, and health-status characteristics. METHODS:Participants included 2467 individuals, aged 65 to 84 years, in a longitudinal, population-based cohort study. Participants rated their vision status from 0 to 10. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields were assessed. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS) questionnaire was administered. Multivariate ordinal and multinomial logistic-regression models examined the association of demographic, health-status characteristics, vision tests, and ADVS subscales with self-rated vision status score. Odds ratios described the association of these characteristics with reporting better vision status. RESULTS: Better visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields were associated with increased odds of reporting better vision status. Among the vision tests, a 2-line increase in visual acuity was most likely to result in an individual reporting better vision status (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.70). A 5-point increase in the near vision and far vision ADVS subscale scores was associated with increased odds of reporting good versus poor vision status. A 5-point increase in the near vision subscale was most likely to result in an individual reporting good versus poor vision status (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: Self-rated vision status is a multidimensional measure. Near-vision visual function, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity are important determinants of self-rated vision status in an elderly population. This understanding may improve the ability of eye care providers to maximize self-rated vision status among their patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
elderly; self-rated vision; vision tests; visual function
Authors: Christopher G Owen; Alicja R Rudnicka; Liam Smeeth; Jennifer R Evans; Richard P L Wormald; Astrid E Fletcher Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2006-06-09 Impact factor: 2.209
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: Chelsea Liu; Niranjani Nagarajan; Lama Assi; Kening Jiang; Danielle S Powell; Emily Pedersen; Lori Rosman; Dillan Villavisanis; Michelle C Carlson; Bonnielin K Swenor; Jennifer A Deal Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Jennifer L Y Yip; Anthony P Khawaja; David Broadway; Robert Luben; Shabina Hayat; Nichola Dalzell; Amit Bhaniani; Nicholas Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Paul J Foster Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 4.638