3.9 Article

Prevalence and burden of self-reported blindness, low vision, and visual impairment in the french community -: A nationwide survey

期刊

ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 123, 期 8, 页码 1117-1124

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archopht.123.8.1117

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of self-reported visual impairment and its association with disabilities, handicaps, and socioeconomic consequences. Methods: A national survey was conducted on a random stratified sample of 359 010 French citizens living in the community; 21760 subjects were selected at random and 16 945 persons (78%) agreed to further questioning. Four thousand ninety-one randomly selected caregivers were interviewed. Four subgroups of subjects were defined (blind or light perception only, low vision or still have form perception, other visual problems, and no visual problems). These were compared after adjustment for age, comorbidity, and household size differences. Results: The prevalence of blindness was 0.10% and of low vision, 1.94%. Subjects with blindness needed assistance with daily activities more often than subjects with no visual problems; they also needed more house modifications. Many subjects with blindness (46.8%) and subjects with low vision (29.0%) were registered for social allowances. Subjects with blindness had fewer paid activities (4.5%) than subjects with no visual problems (20.7%). Social allowances increased considerably (by 277Euro) between those with low vision and those with blindness, Monthly household incomes were lower (P <.001) for subjects with low vision (1255Euro) and blindness (1587Euro) than for subjects with no visual problems (1851Euro). Main Outcome Measures: Collected data included social demography, home description, household income, handicaps, disabilities, social allowances, and daily activities. Conclusion: The results demonstrate associations between self-reported visual impairment and daily living.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据