Purchase this article with an account.
M.M. Baalhaness, A. Michael, P. Chamnongvongse, A. Bradley, K.C. Greenidge, O. Heath–Phillip, T. Brevetti, F. Zizi, G. Jean–Louis, H. Shamamian; Rate of Follow–up Comprehensive Eye Examinations After Glaucoma and Vision Screening; Comparison of Groups and Analysis of Socioeconomic Factors . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):1945.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: To determine rate of follow up examinations after glaucoma and vision screening, and analyze influencing factors. Methods: Individuals of all ages who participated in community health and vision screening sessions in Brooklyn, NY completed a demographic questionnaire and underwent glaucoma and vision examinations. Those with positive glaucoma or vision screen were instructed to make appointments for comprehensive eye examinations within a week, and were contacted via phone one week to two months post screening. The demographic and socioeconomic factors were compared between the groups. Results: 515 individuals were screened: 474 for glaucoma, 490 for vision and 458 for both. 56.9% (270 of 474) were glaucoma positive, 30.6%(150 of 490) were vision positive; 61.1%(315) were screen positive for one or the other. The glaucoma positive made up 85.7% of total screen positive group. 40% (126 of 315) were successfully contacted with the following self–reported results: 49.2 % (62 of 126) did not have follow up eye exam, 24.6 %(31) had follow–up eye exam, and 26.2 %(33) had prior eyeMD and continued their follow up. The rate of follow up exam excluding the group with prior eyeMD is 33.33%. The characteristics of these 3 groups, those who had post–screen exam (without prior eyeMD), those who did not have post–screen eye exam, and those who had prior eyeMD are as follows. Mean age of 71.42 vs. 65.18 vs. 68.42 yrs, percent female: 83.87 vs. 80.65 vs. 87.88, percent African/Caribbean descent 87.1 vs. 88.33 vs. 100, percent married/live with someone: 32.26 vs. 29.1 vs. 40, percent above high school education: 17.85 vs. 27.12 vs. 35.71, percent working: 20 vs. 25.81 vs. 19.35, and percent at/below poverty threshold of 72.22 vs. 74.36 vs. 42.86. Self–reported causes of not seeing an eyeMD were as follows: 41.3 %(26) direct/indirect monetary cost of eyeMD visit, 14.3%(9) appointment received, visit yet to occur, 6.3%(4) left the country, 38.1% miscellaneous reasons. Conclusions: Age, gender, education, marital status, employment and lack of income did not seem to play a role in predicting post–screen eye examination in individuals without prior eyeMD. Financial related factors were the most common self–reported impediment to follow up. Unmeasured motivational factors may be operative.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only