Dominic J Grisafe1, Roberta McKean-Cowdin1, Bruce S Burkemper1, Benjamin Y Xu2, Mina Torres3, Rohit Varma4. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 2. Roski Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 3. Southern California Eye Institute, CHA Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 4. Southern California Eye Institute, CHA Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: rvarma@sceyes.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of visual field loss (VFL) on vision-specific quality of life (VSQOL) by race, ethnicity, and age. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of cross-sectional data from 3 population-based, prospective cohort studies. PARTICIPANTS: The Multiethnic Ophthalmology Cohorts of California Study (MOCCaS) participants included 6142 Latinos, 4582 Chinese Americans, and 6347 Black Americans from Los Angeles County. METHODS: A total of 17 071 adults aged 40 years and older completed comprehensive interviews and ophthalmic examinations from 2000 to 2018. VFL was measured using the Humphrey Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard 24-2 test as decibels (dB) of mean deviation (MD). Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the impact of VFL in the better-seeing eye on self-reported VSQOL scores, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical covariables. Hierarchical modeling was performed to determine the best-fit model after considering main effects and interactions by race, ethnicity, and age. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The VSQOL scores were measured using the 25 Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). Item response theory was used to model vision-related task and well-being composite scores, and classical test theory was used to calculate 11 vision subscales. RESULTS: The impact of VFL on VSQOL varied by race and ethnicity. Five-point reductions in task and well-being scores were reached after mild-to-moderate VFL for Latinos (6.7 dB and 7.5 dB), mild-to-moderate VFL for Chinese Americans (7.0 dB and 8.7 dB), and moderate-to-severe VFL for Black Americans (10.1 dB and 12.9 dB), respectively. Differences met statistical significance when comparing Latinos and Black Americans (P < 0.001). Visual field loss had the largest effect on driving among all participants. Driving difficulties were the only VSQOL outcome modified by age; participants aged 65 years and older scored 0.487 lower points per MD of VFL (P < 0.001). Subscales most affected by VFL included role function, mental health, and dependency. CONCLUSIONS: Race and ethnicity modified the impact of VFL on VSQOL, even after adjusting for sociodemographic covariates. In MOCCaS, Latinos and Chinese Americans reported a greater change in VSQOL than Black Americans for the same level of VFL. Future work should assess whether findings were due to socioeconomic or cultural differences in perception of visual function.
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of visual field loss (VFL) on vision-specific quality of life (VSQOL) by race, ethnicity, and age. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of cross-sectional data from 3 population-based, prospective cohort studies. PARTICIPANTS: The Multiethnic Ophthalmology Cohorts of California Study (MOCCaS) participants included 6142 Latinos, 4582 Chinese Americans, and 6347 Black Americans from Los Angeles County. METHODS: A total of 17 071 adults aged 40 years and older completed comprehensive interviews and ophthalmic examinations from 2000 to 2018. VFL was measured using the Humphrey Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard 24-2 test as decibels (dB) of mean deviation (MD). Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the impact of VFL in the better-seeing eye on self-reported VSQOL scores, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical covariables. Hierarchical modeling was performed to determine the best-fit model after considering main effects and interactions by race, ethnicity, and age. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The VSQOL scores were measured using the 25 Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). Item response theory was used to model vision-related task and well-being composite scores, and classical test theory was used to calculate 11 vision subscales. RESULTS: The impact of VFL on VSQOL varied by race and ethnicity. Five-point reductions in task and well-being scores were reached after mild-to-moderate VFL for Latinos (6.7 dB and 7.5 dB), mild-to-moderate VFL for Chinese Americans (7.0 dB and 8.7 dB), and moderate-to-severe VFL for Black Americans (10.1 dB and 12.9 dB), respectively. Differences met statistical significance when comparing Latinos and Black Americans (P < 0.001). Visual field loss had the largest effect on driving among all participants. Driving difficulties were the only VSQOL outcome modified by age; participants aged 65 years and older scored 0.487 lower points per MD of VFL (P < 0.001). Subscales most affected by VFL included role function, mental health, and dependency. CONCLUSIONS: Race and ethnicity modified the impact of VFL on VSQOL, even after adjusting for sociodemographic covariates. In MOCCaS, Latinos and Chinese Americans reported a greater change in VSQOL than Black Americans for the same level of VFL. Future work should assess whether findings were due to socioeconomic or cultural differences in perception of visual function.
Keywords:
African American Eye Disease Study; Chinese American Eye Study; Classical test theory; Item response theory; Los Angeles Latino Eye Study; Multiethnic Ophthalmology Cohorts of California Study; National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25; Vision-specific quality of life; Visual acuity; Visual field loss; Visual function; Visual impairment
Authors: Fernando A Wilson; Yang Wang; Jim P Stimpson; Asia Sikora Kessler; Diana V Do; Denise H Britigan Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Hugo Senra; Fernando Barbosa; Patrícia Ferreira; Cristina R Vieira; Paul B Perrin; Heather Rogers; Diego Rivera; Isabel Leal Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David S Friedman; Sheila K West; Beatriz Munoz; William Park; James Deremeik; Robert Massof; Kevin Frick; Aimee Broman; Wendy McGill; Donna Gilbert; Pearl German Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2004-07
Authors: Rohit Varma; Sylvia H Paz; Stanley P Azen; Ronald Klein; Denise Globe; Mina Torres; Chrisandra Shufelt; Susan Preston-Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ruth Ma van Nispen; Gianni Virgili; Mirke Hoeben; Maaike Langelaan; Jeroen Klevering; Jan Ee Keunen; Ger Hmb van Rens Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-01-27
Authors: Corina J Shtir; Paul Marjoram; Stanley Azen; David V Conti; Loic Le Marchand; Christopher A Haiman; Rohit Varma Journal: BMC Genet Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 2.797