United States Population Disparities in Ophthalmic Care

被引:3
|
作者
Brant, Arthur [1 ]
Kolomeyer, Natasha [2 ]
Goldberg, Jeffrey L. [1 ,3 ]
Haller, Julia [2 ]
Lee, Cecilia S. [4 ,5 ]
Lee, Aaron Y. [4 ,5 ]
Lorch, Alice C. [6 ]
Lum, Flora [7 ]
Miller, Joan W. [6 ]
Parke II, David W. [7 ,8 ]
Hyman, Leslie [2 ,9 ]
Pershing, Suzann [1 ,3 ,10 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Byers Eye Inst Stanford, Spencer Ctr Vis Res, Dept Ophthalmol, Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
[2] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Wills Eye Hosp, Dept Ophthalmol, Sidney KimmelMed Ctr, Philadelphia, PA USA
[3] VA Palo Alto Hlth Care Syst, Ophthalmol & Eye Care Serv, Palo Alto, CA USA
[4] Univ Washington, Dept Ophthalmol, Seattle, WA USA
[5] Roger & Angie Karalis Johnson Retina Ctr, Seattle, WA USA
[6] HarvardMed Sch, Dept Ophthalmol, Massachusetts Eye & Ear, Boston, MA USA
[7] Amer Acad Ophthalmol, San Francisco, CA USA
[8] Verana Hlth, San Francisco, CA USA
[9] Wills Eye Hosp & Res Inst, Vickie & Jack Farber Vis Res Ctr, Philadelphia, PA USA
[10] Stanford Univ, Byers Eye Inst, Dept Ophthalmol, Sch Med, 2452 Watson Court, Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Blindness; Health care disparities; IRIS Registry; REGISTRY INTELLIGENT RESEARCH; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT; RISK-FACTORS; HEALTH-CARE; NONFINANCIAL BARRIERS; VISION IMPAIRMENT; UNINSURED ADULTS; AMERICAN ACADEMY; PREVALENCE; BLINDNESS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ophtha.2023.06.011
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate associations of patient characteristics with United States eye care use and likelihood of blindness.Design: Retrospective observational study.Participants: Patients (19 546 016) with 2018 visual acuity (VA) records in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's IRIS (R) Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight).Methods: Legal blindness (20/200 or worse) and visual impairment (VI; worse than 20/40) were identified from corrected distance acuity in the better-seeing eye and stratified by patient characteristics. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated associations with blindness and VI. Blindness was mapped by state and compared with population characteristics. Eye care use was analyzed by comparing population demographics with United States Census estimates and proportional demographic representation among blind patients versus a nationally representative US population sample (National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey [NHANES]).Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence and odds ratios for VI and blindness; proportional representation in the IRIS (R) Registry, Census, and NHANES by patient demographics.Results: Visual impairment was present in 6.98% (n = 1 364 935) and blindness in 0.98% (n = 190 817) of IRIS patients. Adjusted odds of blindness were highest among patients >= 85 years old (odds ratio [OR], 11.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.33-13.59 vs. those 0-17 years old). Blindness also was associated positively with rural location and Medicaid, Medicare, or no insurance vs. commercial insurance. Hispanic (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.46-1.74) and Black (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.63-1.84) patients showed a higher odds of blindness versus White non-Hispanic patients. Proportional representation in IRIS Registry relative to the Census was higher for White than Hispanic (2- to 4-fold) or Black (11%-85%) patients (P < 0.001). Blindness overall was less prevalent in NHANES than IRIS Registry; however, prevalence in adults aged 60+ was lowest among Black participants in the NHANES (0.54%) and second highest among comparable Black adults in IRIS (1.57%).Conclusions: Legal blindness from low VA was present in 0.98% of IRIS patients and associated with rural location, public or no insurance, and older age. Compared with US Census estimates, minorities may be underrepresented among ophthalmology patients, and compared with NHANES population estimates, Black individuals may be overrepresented among blind IRIS Registry patients. These findings provide a snapshot of US ophthalmic care and highlight the need for initiatives to address disparities in use and blindness.
引用
收藏
页码:1121 / 1137
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] EXPLORING GENDER DISPARITIES IN PREVENTIVE CARE UTILIZATION AMONGST THE UNITED STATES POPULATION
    Vaidya, V.
    Partha, G.
    Karmakar, M.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (03) : A51 - A51
  • [2] Disparities in access to trauma care in the United States: A population-based analysis
    Carr, Brendan G.
    Bowman, Ariel J.
    Wolff, Catherine S.
    Mullen, Michael T.
    Holena, Daniel N.
    Branas, Charles C.
    Wiebe, Douglas J.
    [J]. INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2017, 48 (02): : 332 - 338
  • [3] Disparities in Urgent Cardiovascular Care in the United States
    Khalid, Nauman
    Ahmad, Sarah Aftab
    [J]. CARDIOVASCULAR REVASCULARIZATION MEDICINE, 2023, 46 : 10 - 11
  • [4] Health Disparities and Access to Care in the United States
    Regan, Charles
    Lamb, Aimee
    Early, Kenneth
    [J]. PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT CLINICS, 2022, 7 (01) : 141 - 147
  • [5] Epistaxis health disparities in the United States pediatric population
    Yang, Lindsay
    Hur, Kevin
    Koempel, Jeffrey
    Ference, Elisabeth H.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2018, 114 : 20 - 25
  • [7] Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Neurological Care in the United States
    Perez, Michael A.
    Reyes-Esteves, Sahily
    Mendizabal, Adys
    [J]. SEMINARS IN NEUROLOGY, 2024, 44 (02) : 178 - 192
  • [8] Disparities in menopausal care in the United States: A systematic review
    Zahn, Katelin
    Pittman, Allison
    Conklin, Jamie
    Knittel, Andrea
    Neal-Perry, Genevieve
    [J]. MATURITAS, 2024, 186
  • [9] Disparities in access to a dermatologist for acne care in the United States
    Patel, Viral M.
    Schwartz, Robert A.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2017, 56 (06) : e131 - e133
  • [10] What explains disparities in cardiovascular care in the United States?
    Malik, S
    Asch, SM
    Kerr, EA
    Adams, J
    Keesey, J
    Hiatt, L
    McGlynn, EA
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2004, 110 (17) : 799 - 800