Associations between self-rated vision score, vision tests, and self-reported visual function in the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study.

Mahmood El-Gasim, Beatriz Munoz, Sheila K West, Adrienne W Scott
Author Information
  1. Mahmood El-Gasim: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Abstract

PURPOSE: We attempt to understand the determinants of self-rated vision status by examining associations with vision tests, self-reported visual function, demographic, and health-status characteristics.
METHODS: Participants included 2467 individuals, aged 65 to 84 years, in a longitudinal, population-based cohort study. Participants rated their vision status from 0 to 10. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields were assessed. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS) questionnaire was administered. Multivariate ordinal and multinomial logistic-regression models examined the association of demographic, health-status characteristics, vision tests, and ADVS subscales with self-rated vision status score. Odds ratios described the association of these characteristics with reporting better vision status.
RESULTS: Better visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields were associated with increased odds of reporting better vision status. Among the vision tests, a 2-line increase in visual acuity was most likely to result in an individual reporting better vision status (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.70). A 5-point increase in the near vision and far vision ADVS subscale scores was associated with increased odds of reporting good versus poor vision status. A 5-point increase in the near vision subscale was most likely to result in an individual reporting good versus poor vision status (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50).
CONCLUSIONS: Self-rated vision status is a multidimensional measure. Near-vision visual function, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity are important determinants of self-rated vision status in an elderly population. This understanding may improve the ability of eye care providers to maximize self-rated vision status among their patients.

Keywords

References

  1. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986 Mar;104(3):356-63 [PMID: 3954634]
  2. Med Care. 1994 Sep;32(9):930-42 [PMID: 8090045]
  3. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Apr;41(5):1017-21 [PMID: 10752936]
  4. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;12(2):103-24 [PMID: 16019693]
  5. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 Jul;119(7):1050-8 [PMID: 11448327]
  6. Br J Ophthalmol. 1984 Nov;68(11):821-7 [PMID: 6498136]
  7. Ophthalmology. 2011 Jul;118(7):1310-7 [PMID: 21458074]
  8. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1981 Aug;21(2):362-5 [PMID: 7251315]
  9. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007 Jul-Aug;14(4):198-204 [PMID: 17896298]
  10. Hum Factors. 1980 Feb;22(1):103-12 [PMID: 7364443]
  11. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1996 Jul;51(4):M185-8 [PMID: 8681002]
  12. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976 Dec;53(12):809-12 [PMID: 1015530]
  13. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Sep;123(9):1207-14 [PMID: 16157800]
  14. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1989 Jun;67(3):225-33 [PMID: 2763808]
  15. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Feb;51(2):712-7 [PMID: 19797233]
  16. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98 [PMID: 1202204]
  17. Ophthalmology. 2010 Dec;117(12):2308-14 [PMID: 20598750]
  18. Br J Ophthalmol. 1987 Oct;71(10):791-6 [PMID: 3676151]
  19. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Sep;142(3):464-8 [PMID: 16935592]
  20. BMC Ophthalmol. 2006 Jun 09;6:24 [PMID: 16764714]
  21. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 Feb;40(2):280-8 [PMID: 9950585]
  22. Med Care. 1992 Dec;30(12):1111-26 [PMID: 1453816]
  23. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 Jan;42(1):64-72 [PMID: 11133849]
  24. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 Oct;49(10):4340-6 [PMID: 18586874]
  25. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991 Feb;32(2):422-32 [PMID: 1993595]
  26. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010 Dec;128(12):1576-82 [PMID: 21149782]
  27. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997 Mar;38(3):557-68 [PMID: 9071208]
  28. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996 May;114(5):529-36 [PMID: 8619761]
  29. Ophthalmology. 2012 Jan;119(1):106-11 [PMID: 21962256]
  30. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1986 Jul;27(7):1131-6 [PMID: 3721791]
  31. Ann Epidemiol. 1999 Jan;9(1):53-9 [PMID: 9915609]
  32. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 May;92(5):612-5 [PMID: 18296505]
  33. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982 Jul;94(1):91-6 [PMID: 7091289]
  34. Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jan;56(2):203-17 [PMID: 12473308]
  35. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;120(6):774-80 [PMID: 12049583]

Grants

  1. AG02513/NIA NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Activities of Daily Living
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aging
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Health Status
Humans
Male
Maryland
Retrospective Studies
Self Disclosure
Surveys and Questionnaires
Vision Tests
Vision, Binocular
Visual Acuity
Visual Fields

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0visionstatusvisualself-ratedtestsreportingfunctionacuityodds1characteristicscontrastsensitivityADVSbetterincreasedeterminantsself-reporteddemographichealth-statusParticipantsstereoacuityfieldsassociationscoreassociatedincreasedlikelyresultindividualratio95%5-pointnearsubscalegoodversuspoorelderlyPURPOSE:attemptunderstandexaminingassociationsMETHODS:included2467individualsaged6584yearslongitudinalpopulation-basedcohortstudyrated010VisualassessedActivitiesDailyVisionScalequestionnaireadministeredMultivariateordinalmultinomiallogistic-regressionmodelsexaminedsubscalesOddsratiosdescribedRESULTS:BetterAmong2-line49confidenceinterval[CI]30-170farscores38CI28-150CONCLUSIONS:Self-ratedmultidimensionalmeasureNear-visionimportantpopulationunderstandingmayimproveabilityeyecareprovidersmaximizeamongpatientsAssociationsSalisburyEyeEvaluationStudy

Similar Articles

Cited By