4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Unilateral visual impairment and health related quality of life: the Blue Mountains Eye Study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 87, 期 4, 页码 392-395

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.4.392

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There has been considerable recent interest in the impact of unilateral visual impairment on functional status and wellbeing, particularly in relation to second eye cataract surgery. Aim: To determine if unilateral visual impairment has a measurable impact on health related quality of life (HRQOL) in an older community, as assessed by the generic, multidimensional 36 item short form health survey (SF-36). Methods: All participants of the second cross sectional Blue Mountains Eye Study (n = 3508) were invited to attend comprehensive eye examinations and complete an SF-36 questionnaire. Unilateral visual impairment was defined as visual acuity (VA) <6/12 in the worse eye and >= 6/12 in the better eye. Mild visual impairment was defined as VA <6/12 but greater than or equal to6/24, moderate as VA <6/24 but >= 6/60, and severe (blindness) as VA <6/60 in the worse eye. Cases with amblyopia (n = 48) were excluded. Results: Complete data were available for 3 108 participants; 227 (7.3%) had unilateral visual impairment (148 mild, 29 moderate, 50 severe). Moderate to severe non-correctable unilateral impairment was associated with poorer SF-36 profiles. After adjusting for age and sex, this group had significantly poorer scores than the unimpaired group in three of eight domains (p<0.05); limitations as a result of physical problems, social function, limitations because of emotional problems, and in the mental component score. Mental domains were more affected than physical domains. Unilateral impairment from undercorrected refraction did not measurably affect HRQOL. Conclusions: Moderate to severe non-correctable unilateral visual impairment caused by eye diseases such as cataract had a measurable impact on HRQOL.

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

4.6
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