Joshua R Ehrlich1,2, H Jeyaseeli Flora3, Brian C Stagg4, B Vengadesh3, Gabrielle Willey5, Ashok Vardhan S6. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India. 4. Duke Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Aravind Eye Hospital, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 6. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the functional concerns of patients with different clinical and demographic characteristics seeking low vision care in South India. DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinic-based survey. METHODS: Consecutive new patients evaluated by the low vision service at Aravind Eye Care System (AECS), Madurai, India, India from September 2016 to March 2017 were recruited. Clinical and sociodemographic data were collected and participants underwent a semistructured survey to determine vision-related functional concerns. Analyses were conducted to determine associations with functional concerns. This study was approved by the AECS Institutional Review Board and all participants provided informed consent. RESULTS: The study included 419 participants (mean age 42.0 years, 65.2% male). Retinal dystrophy (35.8%) and acquired retinal disease (22.0%) were the most common diagnoses. The most frequently cited functional concerns were reading (37.7%), mobility (19.9%), and facial identification (13.8%). The number of functional concerns did not vary by diagnosis, age, sex, education, occupation, or presenting visual acuity (P > 0.05). Participants with retinal dystrophy were more likely to cite problems with night vision (P < .001). Age was significantly associated with greater difficulty recognizing faces [odds ratio (OR) = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-1.43] and less night vision difficulty (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60-1.00). Worse presenting visual acuity was significantly associated with reporting a mobility problem (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 2.09-3.93). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the expansion of low vision services in India targeted to common functional concerns including reading, mobility, and facial identification. However, results do not support the use of ocular diagnosis for this purpose.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the functional concerns of patients with different clinical and demographic characteristics seeking low vision care in South India. DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinic-based survey. METHODS: Consecutive new patients evaluated by the low vision service at Aravind Eye Care System (AECS), Madurai, India, India from September 2016 to March 2017 were recruited. Clinical and sociodemographic data were collected and participants underwent a semistructured survey to determine vision-related functional concerns. Analyses were conducted to determine associations with functional concerns. This study was approved by the AECS Institutional Review Board and all participants provided informed consent. RESULTS: The study included 419 participants (mean age 42.0 years, 65.2% male). Retinal dystrophy (35.8%) and acquired retinal disease (22.0%) were the most common diagnoses. The most frequently cited functional concerns were reading (37.7%), mobility (19.9%), and facial identification (13.8%). The number of functional concerns did not vary by diagnosis, age, sex, education, occupation, or presenting visual acuity (P > 0.05). Participants with retinal dystrophy were more likely to cite problems with night vision (P < .001). Age was significantly associated with greater difficulty recognizing faces [odds ratio (OR) = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-1.43] and less night vision difficulty (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60-1.00). Worse presenting visual acuity was significantly associated with reporting a mobility problem (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 2.09-3.93). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the expansion of low vision services in India targeted to common functional concerns including reading, mobility, and facial identification. However, results do not support the use of ocular diagnosis for this purpose.
Authors: Joseph L Fontenot; Mark D Bona; Mona A Kaleem; William M McLaughlin; Alan R Morse; Terry L Schwartz; John D Shepherd; Mary Lou Jackson Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Praveen K Nirmalan; James M Tielsch; Joanne Katz; Ravilla D Thulasiraj; Ramasamy Krishnadas; Rengappa Ramakrishnan; Alan L Robin Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Anna T Do; Krishanmurthy Ilango; Dhivya Ramasamy; Suriya Kalidasan; Vijayakumar Balakrishnan; Robert T Chang Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 1.848