IOVS European Journal of Biochemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1167/iovs.08-1814 on April 25, 2008
 (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2008;49:5264-5273.)
© 2008 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.08-1814
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
iovs.08-1814v1
49/12/5264    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Varma, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Varma, R.

The Prevalence and Risk Indicators of Uncorrected Refractive Error and Unmet Refractive Need in Latinos: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study

Rohit Varma,1,2 Michelle Y. Wang,1 Mei Ying-Lai,2 Jill Donofrio,2 Stanley P. Azen,1,2 and the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group3

1From the Doheny Eye Institute and the Department of Ophthalmology and the 2Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

PURPOSE. To determine the age- and sex-specific prevalence and risk indicators of uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need among a population-based sample of Latino adults.

METHODS. Self-identified Latinos 40 years of age and older (n = 6129) from six census tracts in La Puente, California, underwent a complete ophthalmic examination, and a home-administered questionnaire provided self-reported data on potential risk indicators. Uncorrected refractive error was defined as a ≥2-line improvement with refraction in the better seeing eye. Unmet refractive need was defined as having <20/40 visual acuity in the better seeing eye and achieving ≥20/40 after refraction (definition 1) or having <20/40 visual acuity in the better seeing eye and achieving a ≥2-line improvement with refraction (definition 2). Sex- and age-specific prevalence and significant risk indicators for uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need were calculated.

RESULTS. The overall prevalence of uncorrected refractive error was 15.1% (n = 926). The overall prevalence of unmet refractive need was 8.9% (n = 213, definition 1) and 9.6% (n = 218, definition 2). The prevalence of uncorrected refractive error and either definition of unmet refractive need increased with age (P < 0.0001). No sex-related difference was present. Older age, <12 years of education, and lack of health insurance were significant independent risk indicators for uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need.

CONCLUSIONS. The data suggest that the prevalence of uncorrected refractive error and unmet refractive need is high in Latinos of primarily Mexican ancestry. Better education and access to care in older Latinos are likely to decrease the burden of uncorrected refractive error in Latinos.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology