Purchase this article with an account.
Brian Harrow, Silvia Sörensen, Katherine Nedrow, Pavel Linares, Rajeev S. Ramchandran; Vision Status of Older Adults in Senior Living Communities: Results of an On-Site Screening Program.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):2192. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Older adults experience more significant vision loss than other age groups. As their numbers increase, so too do the number of residents of senior living communities. Little is known, however, about the visual health of these residents. We conducted on-site eye screening and education sessions to study vision impairment of such residents and to learn what value they place on ocular screening.
On-site eye screening was provided to 183 self-selected residents of two Rochester, NY senior living communities between Jan. 2015 and Jan. 2016. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, fundus photos, and OCT images were obtained. Subjects also participated in an eye education program and completed surveys on their demographics, health status, visual function (NEI VFQ-25), and program satisfaction.
The mean (SD) age of the 183 subjects was 82 (8). They were mostly non-Hispanic white (90%) and female (79%). They reported having good health or better (80%), health insurance (98%), and having had an eye exam in the past year (79%). Reported eye disease included prior cataracts (89%), current cataracts (26%), glaucoma (actual or suspected) (14%), and AMD (19%). Mean (SD) VFQ-25 score was 85 (21), with the lowest subscore of 75 (28) in Driving. Mean (SD) logMAR binocular distance visual acuity (VA) was 0.11 (0.17). Monocular (binocular) distance VA screen “failure” (VA worse than 20/40 in eye(s)) was 32% (10%), one-third of which improved to 20/40 or better with pinhole testing. Mean (SD) binocular contrast sensitivity (CS) was 1.40 (0.28), with 47% failing the CS screen (CS < 1.50). Subjects were satisfied with their eye screening (98%), and 87% reported a willingness to pay (WTP) on average $27 for it. Based on a multivariable regression model, predictors of WTP were VFQ25 subscores in (1) General Health (t=4.0, p<0.001); (2) Distance Activities (t=3.24, p=0.002); and (3) Driving (t =-3.18, p=0.002) (R2=0.19). WTP bore no clear relationship to VA.
Although most subjects received regular eye care and had good visual acuity, nearly 50% had impaired binocular contrast sensitivity. Visual acuity and pinhole testing suggest that vision needs may not be adequately met in this population. Subjects expressed high satisfaction with the screening, and 87% were willing to pay a mean $27 out-of-pocket fee for it.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only