Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Vision and Refractive Error Results

Overview

Journal Clin Exp Optom

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2024 Mar 7

PMID 38452798

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

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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 ( = 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 ( = 59), 3 to 5 lines ( = 120), and ≥6 lines ( = 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, = 0.000) or a normal fundus image (odds ratio 2.783, 95% confidence interval 1.001 to 7.740, = 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.

References

Elliott A, McGwin Jr G, Kline L, Owsley C . Vision Impairment Among Older Adults Residing in Subsidized Housing Communities. Gerontologist. 2015; 55 Suppl 1:S108-17. PMC: 4566911. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnv028. View

Hark L, Horowitz J, Gorroochurn P, Park L, Wang Q, Diamond D . Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Baseline Results and Costs of a Cluster-Randomized Trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2023; 251:12-23. PMC: 10257220. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.01.019. View

De Moraes C, Hark L, Saaddine J . Screening and Interventions for Glaucoma and Eye Health Through Telemedicine (SIGHT) Studies. J Glaucoma. 2021; 30(5):369-370. PMC: 11650802. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001782. View

Burton M, Ramke J, Marques A, Bourne R, Congdon N, Jones I . The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: vision beyond 2020. Lancet Glob Health. 2021; 9(4):e489-e551. PMC: 7966694. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30488-5. View

Taipale J, Mikhailova A, Ojamo M, Nattinen J, Vaatainen S, Gissler M . Low vision status and declining vision decrease Health-Related Quality of Life: Results from a nationwide 11-year follow-up study. Qual Life Res. 2019; 28(12):3225-3236. PMC: 6863947. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02260-3. View

Qiu M, Wang S, Singh K, Lin S . Racial disparities in uncorrected and undercorrected refractive error in the United States. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55(10):6996-7005. PMC: 4215743. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-12662. View

Ehrlich J, Ramke J, Macleod D, Burn H, Lee C, Zhang J . Association between vision impairment and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2021; 9(4):e418-e430. PMC: 7966688. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30549-0. View

Thorpe J, Thorpe C, Kennelty K, Pandhi N . Patterns of perceived barriers to medical care in older adults: a latent class analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011; 11:181. PMC: 3161850. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-181. View

Hark L, Kresch Y, De Moraes C, Horowitz J, Park L, Auran J . Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study in Vulnerable Populations (NYC-SIGHT): Design and Methodology. J Glaucoma. 2021; 30(5):388-394. PMC: 11650758. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001795. View

10.

Wang Q, Klein B, Klein R, Moss S . Refractive status in the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994; 35(13):4344-7. View

11.

Rubin G, Ng E, Bandeen-Roche K, Keyl P, Freeman E, West S . A prospective, population-based study of the role of visual impairment in motor vehicle crashes among older drivers: the SEE study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48(4):1483-91. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0474. View

12.

Gedde S, Lind J, Wright M, Chen P, Muir K, Vinod K . Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Suspect Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology. 2021; 128(1):P151-P192. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.023. View

13.

Gedde S, Vinod K, Wright M, Muir K, Lind J, Chen P . Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology. 2021; 128(1):P71-P150. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.022. View

14.

Bourne R, Cicinelli M, Sedighi T, Tapply I, McCormick I, Jonas J . Effective refractive error coverage in adults aged 50 years and older: estimates from population-based surveys in 61 countries. Lancet Glob Health. 2022; 10(12):e1754-e1763. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00433-8. View

15.

Varma R, Vajaranant T, Burkemper B, Wu S, Torres M, Hsu C . Visual Impairment and Blindness in Adults in the United States: Demographic and Geographic Variations From 2015 to 2050. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016; 134(7):802-9. PMC: 5116104. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1284. View

16.

Vitale S, Cotch M, Sperduto R, Ellwein L . Costs of refractive correction of distance vision impairment in the United States, 1999-2002. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113(12):2163-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.06.033. View

17.

Fricke T, Holden B, Wilson D, Schlenther G, Naidoo K, Resnikoff S . Global cost of correcting vision impairment from uncorrected refractive error. Bull World Health Organ. 2012; 90(10):728-38. PMC: 3471057. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.12.104034. View

18.

Thiagalingam S, Cumming R, Mitchell P . Factors associated with undercorrected refractive errors in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86(9):1041-5. PMC: 1771295. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.86.9.1041. View

19.

Zhang X, Cotch M, Ryskulova A, Primo S, Nair P, Chou C . Vision health disparities in the United States by race/ethnicity, education, and economic status: findings from two nationally representative surveys. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012; 154(6 Suppl):S53-62.e1. PMC: 4169111. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.045. View

20.

Hark L, Mayro E, Tran J, Pond M, Schneider R, Torosian J . Improving access to vision screening in urban Philadelphia elementary schools. J AAPOS. 2016; 20(5):439-443.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2016.07.219. View