4.4 Article

Visual impairment in persons with psychotic disorder

Journal

SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 11, Pages 902-908

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00127-007-0252-6

Keywords

epidemiologic studies; schizophrenia; psychotic disorders; visual acuity; medical comorbidity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Persons with psychotic disorder may have poorer visual acuity (VA). The aim of the study is to investigate in a general population the prevalence of impaired habitual VA and self-reported difficulties in vision among persons with different psychotic disorders. Method A nationally representative sample of 6,663 persons aged 30 or older whose binocular VA for distance and for near vision was measured with current spectacles, if any. Diagnostic assessment of DSM-IV psychotic disorders used both SCID interview and case note data. Life-time ever diagnoses of psychotic disorders were classified into schizophrenia, other non-affective psychotic disorders and affective psychoses. Results After adjusting for age and sex, schizophrenia was associated with significantly increased odds of having visual impairment for distance (OR 5.04, P < 0.0001) and for near vision (OR 6.22, P < 0.0001), while other psychotic disorders were not. Self-reported problems in VA were more common in persons with schizophrenia and other non-affective psychotic disorders than in the remaining study sample. Only 43.9% of persons with schizophrenia, compared with 69.7% in the total sample (chi(2) = 13.79, d.f. 1, P = 0.0002), had had their vision examined during the 5 years before the VA measurement. Conclusions Because persons with schizophrenia attend vision examinations substantially less frequently than others, and their vision is notably weaker, regular ocular evaluations should be included in physical health monitoring in psychotic disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available