Literature DB >> 23868137

Socioeconomic disparity in use of eye care services among US adults with age-related eye diseases: National Health Interview Survey, 2002 and 2008.

Xinzhi Zhang1, Gloria L Beckles, Chiu-Fang Chou, Jinan B Saaddine, M Roy Wilson, Paul P Lee, Nair Parvathy, Asel Ryskulova, Linda S Geiss.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Individuals with age-related eye disease (ARED) need to use eye care services for detection, assessment, and care at regular intervals.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between socioeconomic position (SEP) and use of eye care services among US adults with self-reported ARED during 2002 and 2008.
DESIGN: Data were from the National Health Interview Survey 2002 and 2008. We used multiple logistic regression to estimate predictive margins, controlling for other factors, and we used the slope index of inequality to measure the relationship between SEP and use of eye care services across the entire distributions of poverty-income ratio (PIR) and educational attainment.
SETTING: A cross-sectional, nationally representative sample of adults, with prevalence estimates weighted to represent the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population. PARTICIPANTS: The sample included US participants in the 2002 (n = 3586) and the 2008 (n = 3104) National Health Interview Survey who were at least 40 years old and reported any ARED (age-related macular degeneration, cataract, diabetic retinopathy, or glaucoma). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Use of eye care services; SEP was measured by the PIR and educational attainment.
RESULTS: In 2002, persons with ARED and a PIR of less than 1.50 were significantly less likely than those with a PIR of at least 5 to report visiting an eye care provider (62.7% vs 80.1%; P < .001) or undergoing a dilated eye examination in the past 12 months (64.3% vs 80.4%; P < .001), after adjustment for other factors. Similarly, persons with less than a high school education were less likely than those with at least a college education to report a visit to an eye care provider (62.9% vs 80.8%; P < .001) or dilated eye examination (64.8% vs 81.4%; P < .001). In 2002, the slope index of inequality showed statistically significant differences for eye care provider visits across the levels of education (24.4; P = .006), and in 2008, it showed a significant difference for eye care provider visits across the levels of educational attainment (25.2; P = .049) and PIR (21.8; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Significant differences in the use of eye care services by SEP persist among US adults with eye diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23868137     DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.4694

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2168-6165            Impact factor:   7.389


  27 in total

1.  Diabetes Prevention and Management: The Thrill Is Not Gone.

Authors:  Ann Albright
Journal:  Diabetes Spectr       Date:  2014-02

2.  Neighborhood Deprivation and Risk of Age-Related Eye Diseases: A Follow-up Study in Sweden.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Hamano; Xinjun Li; Masaki Tanito; Toru Nabika; Kuninori Shiwaku; Jan Sundquist; Kristina Sundquist
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.648

3.  Observational Outcomes of Initial Trabeculectomy With Mitomycin C in Patients of African Descent vs Patients of European Descent: Five-Year Results.

Authors:  Andrew H Nguyen; Nima Fatehi; Pablo Romero; Arezoo Miraftabi; EunAh Kim; Esteban Morales; JoAnn Giaconi; Anne L Coleman; Simon K Law; Joseph Caprioli; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 7.389

4.  Nonmedical Out-of-Pocket Patient and Companion Expenditures Associated With Glaucoma Care.

Authors:  Emily M Schehlein; Lily T Im; Alan L Robin; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Osamah J Saeedi
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Barriers to Receiving Follow-Up Eye Care and Detection of Non-Glaucomatous Ocular Pathology in the Philadelphia Glaucoma Detection and Treatment Project.

Authors:  Cindy X Zheng; Wanda D Hu; Judie Tran; Linda Siam; Giuliana G Berardi; Harjeet Sembhi; Lisa A Hark; L Jay Katz; Michael Waisbourd
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2016-04

6.  Gaps in receipt of regular eye examinations among medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with diabetes or chronic eye diseases.

Authors:  Frank A Sloan; Arseniy P Yashkin; Yiqun Chen
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2014-09-07       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Barriers to eye care among participants of a mobile eye clinic.

Authors:  Kousanee Chheda; Rong Wu; Tosha Zaback; Mitchell V Brinks
Journal:  Cogent Med       Date:  2019-08-20

8.  Comparison of automated and expert human grading of diabetic retinopathy using smartphone-based retinal photography.

Authors:  Tyson N Kim; Michael T Aaberg; Patrick Li; Jose R Davila; Malavika Bhaskaranand; Sandeep Bhat; Chaithanya Ramachandra; Kaushal Solanki; Frankie Myers; Clay Reber; Rohan Jalalizadeh; Todd P Margolis; Daniel Fletcher; Yannis M Paulus
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 3.775

9.  Systematic Review of Community-Engaged Research in Ophthalmology.

Authors:  Kristen Harris Nwanyanwu; Holly K Grossetta Nardini; Gabrielle Shaughness; Marcella Nunez-Smith; Paula-Anne Newman-Casey
Journal:  Expert Rev Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-04-19

10.  Is there an association of socioeconomic deprivation with acute primary angle closure?

Authors:  Edward Saxby; Kelvin Cheng; Niamh O'Connell; Roshini Sanders; Pankaj Kumar Agarwal
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 4.456

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.