Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Vision and refractive error results.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Clinical and Experimental Optometry Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1080/08164622.2024.2322523
Daniel F Diamond, Yocheved S Kresch, Prakash Gorroochurn, Lisa Park, Jason D Horowitz, Qing Wang, Stefania C Maruri, Desiree R Henriquez, Noga Harizman, Jailine Carrion, Jeffrey M Liebmann, George A Cioffi, Lisa A Hark
{"title":"Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Vision and refractive error results.","authors":"Daniel F Diamond, Yocheved S Kresch, Prakash Gorroochurn, Lisa Park, Jason D Horowitz, Qing Wang, Stefania C Maruri, Desiree R Henriquez, Noga Harizman, Jailine Carrion, Jeffrey M Liebmann, George A Cioffi, Lisa A Hark","doi":"10.1080/08164622.2024.2322523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Optometrists can play a key role in providing access to eye care in underserved populations by organising community-based eye health screenings that include optometric exams to detect vision impairment and uncorrected refractive error.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Community-based eye health screenings and optometric exams were conducted in the NYC-SIGHT Study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sub-analysis of vision impairment and refractive error results within a 5-year prospective, cluster-randomised clinical trial. Eligible individuals (age ≥40 years) were recruited from 10 affordable housing developments in Upper Manhattan. Developments were randomised into usual care (received glasses prescription only) and intervention (free glasses) groups. Participants with 6/12 visual acuity or worse, intraocular pressure 23-29 mmHg, or an unreadable fundus image were scheduled with the study optometrist for refraction and a non-dilated exam. Visual improvement data were obtained by comparing the presenting acuity at screening compared to the best corrected acuity after refraction by the optometrist. Chi-square, two-sample t-tests, and a stepwise multivariate logistic regression model were used to determined factors associated with improvable visual impairment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven hundred and eight participants completed screening, 308 received an optometric exam. Those with improvable vision impairment (<i>n</i> = 251), mean age: 69.8 years, 70.5% female, 53% African American, 39.8% Hispanic, >95% had health insurance. Refractive error diagnosed in 87.8% of the participants; lines of improvement: 2 lines (<i>n</i> = 59), 3 to 5 lines (<i>n</i> = 120), and ≥6 lines (<i>n</i> = 72). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that participants with visual acuity 6/12 or worse (odds ratio 16.041, 95% confidence interval 6.009 to 42.822, <i>p</i> = 0.000) or a normal fundus image (odds ratio 2.783, 95% confidence interval 1.001 to 7.740, <i>p</i> = 0.05) had significantly higher odds of improvable vision impairment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This innovative, targeted community-based study included an optometrist who detected high rates of refractive error and improvable vision impairment in an underserved population living in New York City.</p>","PeriodicalId":10214,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","volume":" ","pages":"183-190"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11728945/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2024.2322523","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical relevance: Optometrists can play a key role in providing access to eye care in underserved populations by organising community-based eye health screenings that include optometric exams to detect vision impairment and uncorrected refractive error.

Background: Community-based eye health screenings and optometric exams were conducted in the NYC-SIGHT Study.

Methods: A sub-analysis of vision impairment and refractive error results within a 5-year prospective, cluster-randomised clinical trial. Eligible individuals (age ≥40 years) were recruited from 10 affordable housing developments in Upper Manhattan. Developments were randomised into usual care (received glasses prescription only) and intervention (free glasses) groups. Participants with 6/12 visual acuity or worse, intraocular pressure 23-29 mmHg, or an unreadable fundus image were scheduled with the study optometrist for refraction and a non-dilated exam. Visual improvement data were obtained by comparing the presenting acuity at screening compared to the best corrected acuity after refraction by the optometrist. Chi-square, two-sample t-tests, and a stepwise multivariate logistic regression model were used to determined factors associated with improvable visual impairment.

Results: Seven hundred and eight participants completed screening, 308 received an optometric exam. Those with improvable vision impairment (n = 251), mean age: 69.8 years, 70.5% female, 53% African American, 39.8% Hispanic, >95% had health insurance. Refractive error diagnosed in 87.8% of the participants; lines of improvement: 2 lines (n = 59), 3 to 5 lines (n = 120), and ≥6 lines (n = 72). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that participants with visual acuity 6/12 or worse (odds ratio 16.041, 95% confidence interval 6.009 to 42.822, p = 0.000) or a normal fundus image (odds ratio 2.783, 95% confidence interval 1.001 to 7.740, p = 0.05) had significantly higher odds of improvable vision impairment.

Conclusion: This innovative, targeted community-based study included an optometrist who detected high rates of refractive error and improvable vision impairment in an underserved population living in New York City.

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
曼哈顿视力筛查和跟踪研究(NYC-SIGHT):视力和屈光不正结果。
临床意义:验光师可以通过组织社区眼健康筛查,包括验光检查来检测视力损伤和未矫正屈光不正,从而在为服务不足人群提供眼保健服务方面发挥关键作用:背景:纽约市视力研究(NYC-SIGHT Study)开展了社区眼健康筛查和验光检查:方法:在一项为期 5 年的前瞻性群集随机临床试验中,对视力损伤和屈光不正的结果进行子分析。从曼哈顿上城的 10 个经济适用房开发项目中招募了符合条件的人员(年龄≥40 岁)。这些开发项目被随机分为常规护理组(仅接受眼镜处方)和干预组(免费眼镜)。视力为 6/12 或更差、眼压为 23-29 mmHg 或眼底图像无法读取的受试者将被安排接受研究验光师的屈光检查和非散瞳检查。通过比较筛查时的视力与验光师屈光后的最佳矫正视力,获得视力改善数据。采用卡方检验、双样本 t 检验和逐步多变量逻辑回归模型来确定与可改善视力障碍相关的因素:78 名参与者完成了筛查,308 人接受了视力检查。视力受损者(n = 251)的平均年龄为 69.8 岁,70.5% 为女性,53% 为非洲裔美国人,39.8% 为西班牙裔美国人,95% 以上有医疗保险。87.8%的参与者确诊为屈光不正;改善线:2线(59人)、3至5线(120人)和≥6线(72人)。逐步多变量逻辑回归分析显示,视力为 6/12 或更差的参与者(几率比 16.041,95% 置信区间 6.009 至 42.822,p = 0.000)或眼底图像正常的参与者(几率比 2.783,95% 置信区间 1.001 至 7.740,p = 0.05)出现可改善视力损伤的几率明显更高:这项创新的、有针对性的社区研究包括一名验光师,他在纽约市服务不足的人群中发现了高屈光不正率和可改善的视力损害。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Optometry is a peer reviewed journal listed by ISI and abstracted by PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Citation Index and Current Contents. It publishes original research papers and reviews in clinical optometry and vision science. Debate and discussion of controversial scientific and clinical issues is encouraged and letters to the Editor and short communications expressing points of view on matters within the Journal''s areas of interest are welcome. The Journal is published six times annually.
期刊最新文献
The effect of near work on the anterior eye and associations with myopia: a narrative review. Re: 'Using ChatGPT-4 in visual field test assessment'. The use of transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy for the management of severe irregular corneal astigmatism. Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Vision and refractive error results. The effect of macular visual field test density on central structure-function concordance in glaucoma.
×
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