Fernando A Wilson1, Yang Wang2, Jim P Stimpson2, Asia Sikora Kessler2, Diana V Do3, Denise H Britigan2. 1. College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska. Electronic address: fernando.wilson@unmc.edu. 2. College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska. 3. Stanley Truhlsen Eye Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine differences in visual impairment between immigrants and natives in the United States (US). DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study of clinical vision examination data from the 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. METHODS: Analyses compare myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and visual acuity between noncitizens, naturalized citizens, and US natives. Visual acuity variables included having 20/40 or better corrected vision. Differences in 20/20 vision and legal blindness (20/200 or worse) were also examined. Respondents born in the United States were defined as US natives. Foreign-born respondents were categorized as either naturalized US citizens or noncitizen residents. Multivariate logistic regression of outcomes adjusted for sex, age, race/ethnicity, poverty, insurance, diabetes, and surgical correction for eyesight. RESULTS: A smaller percentage of noncitizens than US natives had myopia (18.8% vs 30.7%) or astigmatism (22.0% vs 30.9%). However, noncitizens using corrective lenses had an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.65 of having 20/20 vision compared to US natives (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.88). Differences in visual acuity for 20/40 and better vision were not statistically significant for corrective lens users. Among nonusers of corrective lenses, noncitizens were significantly less likely than US natives to have 20/40 or better vision (AOR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.74). Noncitizens also had up to 3.5 times the odds of being legally blind relative to US natives after adjusting for confounding factors (95% CI 1.52-7.83). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in visual acuity exist between immigrants and US natives. More research is necessary to identify underlying factors that may explain these disparities in visual impairment.
PURPOSE: To examine differences in visual impairment between immigrants and natives in the United States (US). DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study of clinical vision examination data from the 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. METHODS: Analyses compare myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and visual acuity between noncitizens, naturalized citizens, and US natives. Visual acuity variables included having 20/40 or better corrected vision. Differences in 20/20 vision and legal blindness (20/200 or worse) were also examined. Respondents born in the United States were defined as US natives. Foreign-born respondents were categorized as either naturalized US citizens or noncitizen residents. Multivariate logistic regression of outcomes adjusted for sex, age, race/ethnicity, poverty, insurance, diabetes, and surgical correction for eyesight. RESULTS: A smaller percentage of noncitizens than US natives had myopia (18.8% vs 30.7%) or astigmatism (22.0% vs 30.9%). However, noncitizens using corrective lenses had an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.65 of having 20/20 vision compared to US natives (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.88). Differences in visual acuity for 20/40 and better vision were not statistically significant for corrective lens users. Among nonusers of corrective lenses, noncitizens were significantly less likely than US natives to have 20/40 or better vision (AOR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.74). Noncitizens also had up to 3.5 times the odds of being legally blind relative to US natives after adjusting for confounding factors (95% CI 1.52-7.83). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in visual acuity exist between immigrants and US natives. More research is necessary to identify underlying factors that may explain these disparities in visual impairment.
Authors: Dominic J Grisafe; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Bruce S Burkemper; Benjamin Y Xu; Mina Torres; Rohit Varma Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 14.277
Authors: Bella Mehta; Jackie Szymonifka; Shirin Dey; Iris Navarro-Millan; Stephen Grassia; Lisa A Mandl; Anne R Bass; Linda Russell; Michael Parks; Mark Figgie; Lily Lee; Joe Nguyen; Susan M Goodman Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-02-09 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: A H M Enayet Hussain; Munir Ahmed; Jerry E Vincent; Johurul Islam; Yuddha D Sapkota; Taraprasad Das; Nathan Congdon; Lutful Husain; Gulam Khandaker; Mohammad Muhit; Mohammad Awlad Hossain; Danny Haddad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240