Disparities in Eye Care Utilization by Self-Reported Vision Difficulty and Diabetes Status in the United States.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Ophthalmic epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-23 DOI:10.1080/09286586.2023.2249540
Jessica Brinson, Priyanka Kumar, Jiangxia Wang, Varshini Varadaraj, Bonnielin K Swenor, Adrienne W Scott
{"title":"Disparities in Eye Care Utilization by Self-Reported Vision Difficulty and Diabetes Status in the United States.","authors":"Jessica Brinson, Priyanka Kumar, Jiangxia Wang, Varshini Varadaraj, Bonnielin K Swenor, Adrienne W Scott","doi":"10.1080/09286586.2023.2249540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess differences in eye care utilization by vision difficulty (VD), diabetes status, and sociodemographic characteristics for American adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analysis pooled cross-sectional data from the National Health Interview Survey (2010-2018) from US adults ≥ 18 years. The outcome measure was eye care utilization in the past year. The primary independent variable included four groups: no VD or diabetes, only diabetes, only VD, and diabetes and VD. VD was defined as self-reported difficulty seeing even with glasses or contacts. Diabetic status was defined as ever receiving this diagnosis by a health professional. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined associations between eye care utilization, VD, diabetic status, and sociodemographic characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 284,599 adults included in this study, the majority were female (55%), White (73%), and non-Hispanic (84%). In regression analysis, as compared to adults without diabetes or VD, adults with both diabetes and VD had the greatest utilization (OR = 2.49, 99% CI = 2.18-2.85). Females had higher utilization than men (OR = 1.45, 99% CI = 1.41-1.50). Higher levels of education was associated with greater utilization (OR = 1.82, 99% CI = 1.72-1.92). White and American Indian adults without diabetes had higher utilization compared to other races (OR = 1.17, 99% CI = 1.12-1.24, 0.98-1.39).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While adults with VD and diabetes are better connected to eye care, significant eye care disparities persist for marginalized groups in the U.S. Identifying and understanding these disparities and eliminating barriers to care is critical to better support all patient populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19607,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"283-290"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2023.2249540","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess differences in eye care utilization by vision difficulty (VD), diabetes status, and sociodemographic characteristics for American adults.

Methods: The analysis pooled cross-sectional data from the National Health Interview Survey (2010-2018) from US adults ≥ 18 years. The outcome measure was eye care utilization in the past year. The primary independent variable included four groups: no VD or diabetes, only diabetes, only VD, and diabetes and VD. VD was defined as self-reported difficulty seeing even with glasses or contacts. Diabetic status was defined as ever receiving this diagnosis by a health professional. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined associations between eye care utilization, VD, diabetic status, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Results: Of the 284,599 adults included in this study, the majority were female (55%), White (73%), and non-Hispanic (84%). In regression analysis, as compared to adults without diabetes or VD, adults with both diabetes and VD had the greatest utilization (OR = 2.49, 99% CI = 2.18-2.85). Females had higher utilization than men (OR = 1.45, 99% CI = 1.41-1.50). Higher levels of education was associated with greater utilization (OR = 1.82, 99% CI = 1.72-1.92). White and American Indian adults without diabetes had higher utilization compared to other races (OR = 1.17, 99% CI = 1.12-1.24, 0.98-1.39).

Conclusion: While adults with VD and diabetes are better connected to eye care, significant eye care disparities persist for marginalized groups in the U.S. Identifying and understanding these disparities and eliminating barriers to care is critical to better support all patient populations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国按自我报告的视力困难和糖尿病状况划分的眼科保健使用率差异。
目的:评估美国成年人因视力困难(VD)、糖尿病状况和社会人口特征而在眼科保健利用率方面存在的差异:分析汇集了全国健康访谈调查(2010-2018 年)中的横截面数据,这些数据来自年龄≥ 18 岁的美国成年人。结果测量指标为过去一年的眼科保健使用情况。主要自变量包括四组:无视网膜病变或糖尿病、仅有糖尿病、仅有视网膜病变以及糖尿病和视网膜病变。视力障碍的定义是自述即使戴眼镜或隐形眼镜也看不清东西。糖尿病状态的定义是曾被医疗专业人员诊断为糖尿病。多变量逻辑回归分析研究了眼科护理利用率、视力障碍、糖尿病状况和社会人口特征之间的关联:在 284,599 名参与研究的成年人中,大多数为女性(55%)、白人(73%)和非西班牙裔(84%)。在回归分析中,与没有糖尿病或退行性病变的成年人相比,同时患有糖尿病和退行性病变的成年人的使用率最高(OR = 2.49,99% CI = 2.18-2.85)。女性的使用率高于男性(OR = 1.45,99% CI = 1.41-1.50)。教育程度越高,使用率越高(OR = 1.82,99% CI = 1.72-1.92)。与其他种族相比,没有糖尿病的白人和美国印第安人使用率更高(OR = 1.17, 99% CI = 1.12-1.24, 0.98-1.39):虽然患有退行性视网膜病变和糖尿病的成年人更容易获得眼科护理,但在美国,边缘化群体在眼科护理方面仍存在显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmic epidemiology
Ophthalmic epidemiology 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ophthalmic Epidemiology is dedicated to the publication of original research into eye and vision health in the fields of epidemiology, public health and the prevention of blindness. Ophthalmic Epidemiology publishes editorials, original research reports, systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles, brief communications and letters to the editor on all subjects related to ophthalmic epidemiology. A broad range of topics is suitable, such as: evaluating the risk of ocular diseases, general and specific study designs, screening program implementation and evaluation, eye health care access, delivery and outcomes, therapeutic efficacy or effectiveness, disease prognosis and quality of life, cost-benefit analysis, biostatistical theory and risk factor analysis. We are looking to expand our engagement with reports of international interest, including those regarding problems affecting developing countries, although reports from all over the world potentially are suitable. Clinical case reports, small case series (not enough for a cohort analysis) articles and animal research reports are not appropriate for this journal.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of a Risk Screening Tool for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) in a German Cohort. Feasibility and Patient Experience of a Pilot Artificial Intelligence-Based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program in Northern Ontario. Binocular Visual Field Loss and Crash Risk: An eFOVID Population-Based Study. Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Dilated Fundus Examinations by Metropolitan Status from 2017-2021: An Assessment of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Weather Patterns, Patient, and Appointment Characteristics Associated with Cancellations and No-Shows in a Glaucoma Clinic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1