Search

Vision screening and regular eye care can help detect and treat potentially irreversible vision impairment. This study aims to investigate the associations between sociodemographic and health characteristics and the receipt of eye care among children aged 17 years and younger in the United States. This cross-sectional study used data from the National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), a nationally representative and population-based survey of randomly sampled households. Participants were children aged 0 to 17 years, residing in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, whose caregivers or parents answered an address-based survey by mail or online. Weighted prevalence calculations were applied to analyze the data, and logistic regression was performed to explore associations between reported eye care and demographic, health, and parent-related variables. Caregiver-reported vision screenings, referral to an eye doctor after vision screening, eye doctor visits, and prescription of corrective lenses. Caregivers reported that 53.2% of children had a vision screening at least once (if child ≤ 5 years) or within the past 2 years (if child > 5 years). Of those screened, 26.9% were referred to an eye doctor. Overall, 38.6% of all children had a previous eye doctor visit, and among them, 55.4% were prescribed corrective lenses during the visit. Factors associated with decreased odds of vision screening included younger age, lack of health care visits, no insurance coverage, parent education high school or less, and lower household income. Non-White ethnicities, households with a non-English primary language, and lower incomes were more likely to be referred to an eye doctor after vision screening. Lower rates of eye doctor visits were associated with younger age, lack of insurance coverage, and primary household languages other than English. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to receive vision screening and eye care. Targeted strategies are needed to increase vision screening and access to eye care services in these vulnerable groups. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the rate of visual impairment (VI) from uncorrected refractive error (URE) and associations with demographic and socioeconomic factors among low-income patients presenting to the Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program. Cross-sectional study. Adults ≥ 18 years without acute ocular symptoms. MI-SIGHT program participants received a telemedicine-based eye disease screening and ordered glasses through an online optical store. Participants were categorized based on refractive error (RE) status: VI from URE (presenting visual acuity [PVA], ≤ 20/50; best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA], ≥ 20/40), URE without VI (PVA, ≥ 20/40; ≥ 2-line improvement to BCVA), and no or adequately corrected RE (PVA, ≥ 20/40; < 2-line improvement to BCVA). Patient demographics, self-reported visual function, and satisfaction with glasses obtained through the program were compared among groups using analysis of variance, Kruskal–Wallis, chi-square, and Fisher exact testing. PVA, BCVA, and presence of VI (defined as PVA ≤ 20/50). Of 1171 participants enrolled in the MI-SIGHT program during the first year, average age was 55.1 years (SD = 14.5), 37.7% were male, 54.1% identified as Black, and 1166 (99.6%) had both PVA and BCVA measured. VI was observed in 120 participants (10.3%); 96 had VI from URE (8.2%), 168 participants (14.4%) had URE without VI, and 878 (75.3%) had no or adequately corrected RE. A smaller percentage of participants with VI resulting from URE reported having a college degree, and a larger percentage reported income < $10 000 compared with participants with no or adequately corrected RE (3.2% vs. 14.2% [ P = 0.02]; 45.5% vs. 21.6% [ P < 0.0001], respectively). Visual function was lowest among participants with VI from URE, followed by those with URE without VI, and then those with no or adequately corrected RE (9-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire composite score, 67.3 ± 19.6 vs. 77.0 ± 14.4 vs. 82.2 ± 13.3, respectively; P < 0.0001). In total, 71.2% (n = 830) ordered glasses for an average cost of $36.80 ± $32.60; 97.7% were satisfied with their glasses. URE was the main cause of VI at 2 clinics serving low-income communities and was associated with reduced vision-related quality of life. An online optical store with lower prices made eyeglasses accessible to low-income patients. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States (US) federal government uses health provider shortage areas (HPSAs) to define patient accessibility to primary care physicians. It is unclear whether HPSAs can be applied to eye care providers (ECPs). Our study determined the applicability of federal HPSA designations to ECP availability in the US. Cross-sectional study. US general population and ophthalmologists/optometrists in the Medicare database. The primary care HPSA score, visual impairment prevalence, and ECP location were determined for each census tract or county using data from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Association of HPSA with vision loss and ECP density was examined. The 2-step floating catchment area approach was used to newly define eye care shortage areas (patient accessibility score [PAS], higher being worse accessibility) for every county in the US, by weighting the 2-step FCA scores by prevalence of vision loss and ECP density. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic variables associated with areas of ECP shortage. Among 72 735 census tracts included, statistically significant but weak correlations of HPSA score with visual impairment (VI) (r = 0.38; P < 0.0001) and ECP density per county population (r = –0.18; P < 0.0001) were found. Only 54.0% of census tracts with < 25th percentile ECP density per county were HPSAs (P < 0.0001). Of census tracts > than 75th percentile for VI only 58.0% were HPSAs (P < 0.0001). Multivariable regression found a higher odds of ECP PAS ≥ 75th percentile (worse accessibility) in rural counties (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93–3.67; P < 0.001) and counties with a greater prevalence of residents with less than a high school education (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.19–1.25; P < 0.001), residents ≥ 65 years of age (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07–1.13; P < 0.001), and uninsured residents (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01–1.06; P < 0.001). Counties with a greater proportion of men (aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89–0.967; P < 0.001) or White residents (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98–0.99) had a lower odds of ECP PAS ≥ 75th percentile. Current HPSAs only weakly correlate with ECP supply. We propose a new approach to identify counties with high need but limited access to eye care. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]