Methods  Nearly 290 000 adults 18 years or older participated in the survey from 1997 through 2005. Eye care utilization was based on self-reported contact with an eye care professional in the past year. Participants were classified by level of visual impairment based on response to 2 questions. The survey and logistic regression procedures in SAS statistical software were used to compute 1997 through 2005 pooled eye care utilization rates and to identify correlates of utilization.

Results  Overall eye care utilization rates were 58.3%, 49.6%, and 33.7%, respectively, for participants with severe, some, and no visual impairment; rates for respondents without health insurance were 35.9%, 23.8%, and 14.3%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analyses completed in racial/ethnic and age category subgroups indicated that no reported visual impairment, lack of health insurance, male sex, and low education were associated with low eye care utilization rates.

Conclusions  Interventions designed to increase eye care utilization rates in select sociodemographic subgroups are needed. Overall utilization rates may also be enhanced if progress is made toward dramatically increasing the number of Americans with health insurance.

In 2006, the US Census Bureau reported that the number of nonelderly uninsured Americans had increased in 2005 by another 1.3 million, for a total of 46.6 million uninsured, continuing an upward trend that began in the year 2000.¹⁰ Lack of health insurance is associated with lower health care utilization in general¹¹ and with lower ocular health care utilization in particular,^{8, 12} but national estimates of eye care utilization in adults with and without health insurance are limited¹³; furthermore, these associations have not been examined in adults by level of reported visual impairment. The analysis herein uses nationally representative National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data to estimate the prevalence of eye care utilization in adults classified by reported visual impairment status and grouped according to sociodemographic indicators and health insurance status. Because of the study's large size and uniform data collection procedures, it is possible to pool data across survey years, permitting examination of associations between eye care utilization and insurance status in a large and diverse sample of adults, including nearly 1300 respondents with severe visual impairment. Multivariable modeling is also used to assess the relative contributions of visual impairment and sociodemographic and health insurance factors on eye care utilization rates.

METHODS

Visual impairment of the participants was assessed by asking the following questions: "Do you have any trouble seeing, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses?" (yes indicated some visual impairment) and "Are you blind or unable to see at all?" (yes indicated severe visual impairment). Participants who answered yes to the question, "During the past 12 months have you seen or talked to any optometrist, ophthalmologist, or eye doctor (someone who prescribes eyeglasses)?" were classified as having utilized eye care. Interviewers were instructed to check no to this question if the only eye care provider seen in the previous 12 months was identified by the participant as an "optician."

Consistency of health insurance coverage in the 12 months prior to the interview and the type of insurance (public or private) was available.²³ One adult household member was asked about the insurance status for all members by means of the following question: "What kind of health insurance or health care coverage does [household member] have? Include those that pay for only 1 type of service (nursing home care, accidents, or dental care), and exclude private plans that only provide extra cash while hospitalized." Periods without health insurance coverage in the past 12 months were obtained for insured family members. The duration of noncoverage was also obtained for family members without health insurance at the time of interview. A household member was considered uninsured if he or she was not covered by private health insurance or government-sponsored (ie, public) insurance plans including Medicare, Medicaid, and military coverage.

Other sociodemographic measures included in the analyses were age group (18-44 years, 45-64 years, and 65 years), sex, educational level (less than high school, high school, and some college or higher), and family income (<$20 000 and $20 000). Hispanic origin was based on response to the question, "Do you consider yourself Hispanic/Latino?" Respondents were instructed to select from a flash card a response category that best represented their Hispanic origin or ancestry. Race was based on response to the following questions: "What race do you consider yourself to be?" For those selecting more than 1 race group from the flash card shown, a second question was asked: "Which one of these groups [interviewer reads categories selected by respondent] would you say best represents your race?" Race and Hispanic origin were based on coding algorithms applied by the National Center for Health Statistics.²⁴

Prevalence rates of eye care utilization and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adjusted for survey design and pooling of data across survey years by means of the SUDAAN Proc Crosstab procedure.²⁵ We also analyzed data by multivariable logistic regression to determine the significance of the relationship between visual impairment, sociodemographic characteristics, and health insurance and the likelihood that NHIS adult participants 18 years or older had consulted an ocular health care provider within the past year. Before proceeding to multivariable analyses, we examined the data for potential colinearity among covariates as well as interactions among our covariates (eg, age x visual impairment status). We also hypothesized that there would be a dose-response relationship between the consistency of health insurance coverage and eye care utilization prevalence rates even after adjustment for sociodemographic status. To test this, we performed trend analyses for qualitatively defined categories.²⁶ All analyses were performed with SAS survey procedures to incorporate sample weights and design effects.

Initial modeling that included all participants identified a number of interactions among covariates of interest, which led us to undertake analyses stratified by age group (ie, 18-44, 45-64, and 65 years) and race/ethnicity (ie, non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanics of any race). We further explored all first-order interactions with visual impairment in each of the race/ethnicity-age models and found there were no significant interactions of interest. Participants who did not fall into the 3 racial/ethnic categories were excluded because of the heterogeneity of this category combined with numerous interactions among the covariates (n = 10 374).

All multivariable logistic models included the following independent variables: category of visual impairment, sex, education, household income, and insurance status.

RESULTS

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Table 1. Prevalence of Eye Care Utilization in the Past 12 Months in Adults Grouped by Level of Reported VI: 1997-2005 National Health Interview Survey

MULTIVARIABLE RESULTS FOR ADULTS 18 TO 44 YEARS OF AGE

Level of visual impairment was associated with ocular health care utilization among adults aged 18 to 44 years, irrespective of race/ethnicity (Table 2). However, the strongest association was found among non-Hispanic black respondents reporting severe visual impairment (odds ratio [OR], 7.94; 95% CI, 3.90-16.16), even afteradjustment for all other covariates. Odds of ocular health care contacts were 1.41 to 1.64 times higher in women than men. Increasing levels of education were associated with the ocular health care contacts; this association was strongest in Hispanics with at least some college (OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.72-3.33). There was a small but significant increased odds of ocular health care contacts among those residing in households with yearly incomes of $20 000 or more (range of ORs, 1.08-1.24). Odds of ocular health care contacts were 2.00 to 2.47 times higher in those with than without health insurance.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Table 2. Age Group– and Racial/Ethnic Group–Specific Multivariable Predictors of Ocular Health Care Utilization in US Adults: 1997-2005 National Health Interview Survey

MULTIVARIABLE RESULTS FOR ADULTS 45 TO 64 YEARS OF AGE

Odds of ocular health care visits in adults aged 45 to 64 years were greater in those reporting than in those not reporting visual impairment. The strongest associations were seen for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics reporting severe visual impairment (OR, 5.25; 95% CI, 3.06-9.01 vs OR, 5.51; 95% CI, 3.00-10.14). Women were more likely than men to report ocular health care visits (range of ORs, 1.39-1.46); those with higher levels of education were also more likely to report ocular health care visits, although these associations were not as strong as those noted for younger adults. The strongest association between household income and ocular health care visits was found in non-Hispanic whites (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.21-1.37). Odds of ocular health care contacts were approximately 2.5 times higher in those with than in those without health insurance. Odds of ocular health care contacts increased with survey years, reflecting increased utilization over time, particularly for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04 vs OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06).

MULTIVARIABLE RESULTS FOR ADULTS 65 YEARS OR OLDER

In general, associations between covariates and ocular health care utilization were not as strong for adults 65 years or older relative to younger adults. There was no evidence of a dose-response association between degree of visual impairment and ocular health care visits, irrespective of race/ethnicity. Consistent with the findings for younger adults, odds of ocular health care contacts were higher in women than in men. Associations existed between level of education, household income, and ocular health care visits, although no OR exceeded 1.62. The association between insurance and ocular health care utilization was strongest among Hispanics (OR, 4.07; 95% CI, 2.32-7.16). Eye care utilization rates increased during the survey period for all 3 racial/ethnic groups (range of ORs, 1.01-1.04).

MULTIVARIABLE RESULTS FOR ALTERNATE HEALTH INSURANCE INDICATORS

There were strong dose-response associations between the consistency of health care coverage and the odds of accessing ocular health care in the previous 12 months within nearly all examined racial/ethnic subgroups (Table 3). The test for trend was significant in each of the multivariable models (P < .05). Relative to those with consistent coverage for at least 12 months, adults without health insurance coverage for 12 months or longer had the lowest odds of ocular health care access, irrespective of age group and racial/ethnic status. The demographic subgroup with the strongest inverse association was found to be Hispanics 65 years or older. Compared with those consistently insured, older Hispanics who either had a gap in coverage in the past 12 months or were uninsured for longer than 12 months had the lowest odds of ocular health care utilization in the past year (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.13-0.44). Among adults younger than 65 years, there were also significantly lower odds of ocular health care utilization among those who were uninsured for longer than 1 year relative to those who were consistently insured, irrespective of race/ethnicity (range of ORs, 0.32-0.38). In these same age groups, insured adults who reported a gap in insurance coverage in the past 12 months also had statistically significantly lower odds of ocular health care utilization than did those who were consistently insured (range of ORs, 0.69-0.94).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Table 3. Association of Consistency of Health Care Insurance Coverage and Ocular Health Care Utilization: 1997-2005 National Health Interview Survey

With 1 notable exception, there were no significant differences in ocular utilization rates among adults with private vs public health insurance after adjustment for model covariates (Table 3). Adjusted odds of ocular health care utilization rates were significantly greater in Hispanics 45 to 64 years of age with public vs private insurance (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.31-1.81). Although not always statistically significant, adults covered by both public and private health insurance had higher odds of ocular health care utilization than did adults with private insurance only (range of ORs, 1.03-1.98).

COMMENT

The association between low eye care utilization rates and lack of, or inconsistent, health insurance coverage, even after adjustment for income and educational attainment (Table 3), suggests that overall ocular health care access would be enhanced if progress is made toward securing coverage for the 46.6 million Americans who do not currently have health insurance.¹⁰ Our findings have also identified troubling gaps in eye care utilization among adults with health insurance coverage. Adults who reported an interruption in health insurance coverage in the 12 months prior to the interview were less likely to report a visit to an ocular health care provider than were those who were consistently insured. In our analyses, 3.8% or an estimated 7.8 million US community-residing adults annually reported such a coverage gap in the past 12 months.

We also found that adults who reported concurrent private and public health care coverage were generally more likely to report an ocular health care visit in the preceding 12 months than were adults who had private insurance only, even after adjustment for level of visual impairment, sex, and educational attainment. The NHIS did not assess whether ocular care was included as part of the participants' insurance coverage. It is nevertheless possible that public coverage filled in some of the well-known gaps in ocular health care coverage of many of the private health care plans offered in the United States. For example, Medicare and Medicaid typically include basic eye care services, such as annual eye examinations (http://www.medicare.gov; http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/financialaid.asp). Our findings point to the need for addressing the coverage limitations for ocular care in private insurance plans as well as addressing the broader need for health insurance for all Americans.

Hispanics experience a wide variety of barriers when they interact with the health care system (eg, language differences and discrimination), which lead to lower utilization of ocular health care as well as general health care.^{9, 30-31} For example, relative to whites, Hispanic individuals are less likely to receive ambulatory health care services and to report a usual source for health care, and they are more likely to report that they are dissatisfied with the care received by family members.^32-33 Our findings suggest heterogeneity in eye care utilization in Hispanic subgroups. For example, among those reporting some visual impairment, eye care utilization prevalence was lowest among Mexican Americans relative to other Hispanic subgroups (36% vs 41%-48%). Among Hispanics reporting severe visual impairment, eye care utilization rates were lowest in Cuban Americans (42%) and Mexican Americans (46%) relative to Puerto Ricans and those listed as "other Spanish" (58%). Previous research has also documented low ocular health care utilization rates in Mexican Americans with diabetes mellitus.⁵ Of note, previous analyses of Hispanic subgroups have also documented lower rates of ambulatory health care utilization in Mexican and Cuban Americans relative to Puerto Ricans.³⁴ These findings indicate that Hispanics in general, and select Hispanic subgroups in particular (eg, Mexican Americans), may benefit from tailored, culturally competent educational programs designed to increase ocular health care utilization.³⁵

Our findings also support previous studies that indicate that less educated individuals, younger vs older adults, and males vs females have lower eye care utilization rates.^{6, 9} Our findings with respect to sex are consistent with those reported in the Beaver Dam Eye Study (adjusted OR comparing women vs men, 1.27).⁸ Men in general interact with the health care system at lower rates than women,³⁶ and interventions designed to increase ocular health care utilization by men may be warranted. Only 40% to 60% of middle-aged adults reported an ocular health care visit in the preceding 12 months. This age group should also be targeted for public health messaging campaigns to increase awareness of recommended time intervals for periodic eye examinations.³ Establishing good screening practices in middle age should lead to a greater likelihood that such preventive practices will carry over into the older years, when annual ocular examinations become increasingly important for early disease detection.

Our findings also highlight the importance of educational levels in influencing preventive screening behaviors. In addition to visual impairment levels and insurance status, educational attainment was a strong correlate of ocular health care utilization, particularly when rates were compared among those with less than a high school education vs those with at least some college (Table 2). The reasons for lower preventive screening behaviors among the less educated are complex and may relate, in part, to lower lifetime income-earning opportunities and fewer opportunities to obtain affordable and stable health insurance coverage. In addition, numerous studies have shown that the quality of physician-patient communications is lower among less educated vs more educated patients.³⁷ Ocular health care providers should be mindful to ensure that they are effectively communicating with their less educated patients. It is also essential that the reading level required for any educational materials provided by practitioners be appropriate for their diverse patient populations.³⁸

There are several advantages to the use of the NHIS to examine eye care utilization rates in the United States. The NHIS is designed to be representative of the US population; only institutionalized and military groups have been omitted from direct sampling. In addition, the large number of respondents surveyed permitted us to examine the issue of ocular health care utilization in large numbers of US adults reporting severe visual impairment (n = 1289) as well as in understudied populations, such as Hispanic subgroups other than Mexican Americans.

Several study limitations should be noted, including the self-report nature of the NHIS, which could lead to inaccuracies in the reporting of ocular health care visits. Participants in the NHIS were not asked to indicate what type of eye care professional they had visited in the previous year. Of note, previous ocular health care utilization studies have reported that 71% to 89% of annual visits to ocular health care providers were to ophthalmologists.^{6, 27, 39} The NHIS also does not collect information on health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health care expenditures, which may also be associated with the likelihood of ocular health care utilization. Finally, we did not have information on the degree of health insurance coverage provided for ocular-related health care needs.

Because of the self-reported nature of the NHIS, there is likely some misclassification of reported visual impairment. For example, although prevalence estimates of blindness among participants 40 years or older are similar to US estimates based on best-corrected visual acuity (0.56% vs 0.78%), NHIS estimates of some visual impairment are higher than poor-vision estimates based on a best-corrected visual acuity of less than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye (11.8% vs 2.0%).² It should be noted that the "some visual impairment" category in the NHIS captures an unknown proportion of respondents with impaired contrast sensitivity or reduced visual fields who may not have significant refractive error. These ocular conditions are independently associated with self-reported visual disability.⁴⁰ The "some visual impairment" category in the NHIS should be considered a broader indicator of functional visual impairment relative to acuity-only definitions of visual impairment. Finally, the response rate to the adult household interview in which the eye care utilization and visual impairment questions were administered has been declining in recent years and was 69% in 2005.²²

In a recent 5-state survey of ocular health care utilization, the most common reason given for no eye care visit in the preceding 12 months was "no reason to go."⁹ Effective educational campaigns designed to educate the public on the need for periodic eye care examinations are needed, especially in sociodemographic subgroups identified in our analysis as having low rates of ocular health care utilization.^{35, 41} The effectiveness of such campaigns might be enhanced if the major ocular organizations could agree on an easy-to-follow set of recommendations regarding the frequency of eye examinations.³ Consistent screening intervals would also make it easier for national surveys such as the NHIS to write survey questions specifically designed to monitor adherence to these recommendations.

Our findings also support the need for comprehensive health care reform to increase the proportion of Americans with health insurance. Ocular health care professionals should seek an active voice in this national discussion for several reasons. First, development of a comprehensive and affordable health insurance system will increase the proportion of Americans who adhere to ocular health screening recommendations, leading to the early detection of disabling ocular conditions. Second, ocular health care professionals must educate health care reform leaders about the need for routine coverage of corrective lenses which, if fully implemented, would cost about $3.8 billion annually.^{31, 42} For example, most policy leaders are unaware that more than 80% of Americans with visual impairment, as defined as a visual acuity of 20/50 or worse in the better-seeing eye on initial examination, could achieve acceptable to good visual acuity if provided with accurately prescribed corrective lenses⁴³ and that the provision of such correction and other poor-vision rehabilitative services leads to measurable improvements in quality of life.^44-45 Finally, focus group data suggest that adults may view ocular health as distinct from, and perhaps less important than, their overall health because preventive ocular health care services are often not covered by health insurance.³¹ Meaningful progress toward the correction of this misperception may not be possible until all health insurance plans provide adequate coverage for ocular health care.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Submitted for Publication: March 6, 2008; final revision received June 24, 2008; accepted June 25, 2008.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant R03 EY016481 from the National Eye Institute.

1. Prevent Blindness America. The economic impact of vision problems. http://www.preventblindness.org/research/Impact_of_Vision_Problems.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2007. 2. Congdon N, O’Colmain B, Klaver CC; et al, Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(4):477-485. FREE FULL TEXT 3. Rowe S, MacLean CH, Shekelle PG. Preventing visual loss from chronic eye disease in primary care: scientific review. JAMA. 2004;291(12):1487-1495. FREE FULL TEXT 4. Sloan FA, Picone G, Brown DS, Lee PP. Longitudinal analysis of the relationship between regular eye examinations and changes in visual and functional status. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(11):1867-1874. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 5. Paz SH, Varma R, Klein R, Wu J, Azen SP. Noncompliance with vision care guidelines in Latinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(8):1372-1377. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 6. Orr P, Barrón Y, Schein OD, Rubin GS, West SK. Eye care utilization by older Americans: the SEE Project. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(5):904-909. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 7. Lee PP, Feldman ZW, Ostermann J, Brown DS, Sloan FA. Longitudinal rates of annual eye examinations of persons with diabetes and chronic eye diseases. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(10):1952-1959. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 8. Puent BD, Klein BE, Klein R, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM. Factors related to vision care in an older adult cohort. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82(7):612-616. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 9. Bailey RN, Indian RW, Zhang X, Geiss LS, Duenas MR, Saaddine JB, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Visual impairment and eye care among older adults—five states, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55(49):1321-1325. PUBMED 10. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Lee CH. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2006. Current Population Reports, No. P60-231.11. Ross JS, Bradley EH, Busch SH. Use of health care services by lower-income and higher-income uninsured adults. JAMA. 2006;295(17):2027-2036. FREE FULL TEXT 12. Shi L. Type of health insurance and the quality of primary care experience. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(12):1848-1855. WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 13. Zhang X, Saaddine JB, Lee PP; et al. Eye care in the United States: do we deliver to high-risk people who can benefit most from it? Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(3):411-418. FREE FULL TEXT 14. Blackwell DL, Collins JG, Coles R. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 1997. Vital Health Stat 10. 2002;(205):1-109. PUBMED 15. Lethbridge-Cejku M, Schiller JS, Bernadel L. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2002. Vital Health Stat 10. 2004;(222):1-151. PUBMED 16. Lethbridge-Cejku M, Vickerie J. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2003. Vital Health Stat 10. 2005;(225):1-161.17. Lucas JW, Schiller JS, Benson V. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2001. Vital Health Stat 10. 2004;(218):1-134. PUBMED 18. Lethrbridge-Cejku M, Rose D, Vickerie J. Summary Health Statistics for US Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2004. Vital Health Stat 10. 2006;(228):1-154.19. Pleis JR, Coles R. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 1998. Vital Health Stat 10. 2002;(209):1-113. PUBMED 20. Pleis JR, Coles R. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 1999. Vital Health Stat 10. 2003;(212):1-137. PUBMED 21. Pleis JR, Schiller JS, Benson V. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2000. Vital Health Stat 10. 2003;(215):1-132.22. Pleis JR, Lethbridge-Cejku M. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2005. Vital Health Stat 10. 2006;(232):1-153. PUBMED 23. Cohen RA, Martinez ME. Health insurance coverage: estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2004. National Center for Health Statistics, June 2005. http://origin.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200506.pdf. Accessed December 17, 2007.24. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) public use data release. ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/NHIS/2005/srvydesc.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2008.25. Caban AJ, Lee DJ, Gomez-Marin O, Lam BL, Zheng DD. Prevalence of concurrent hearing and visual impairment in US adults: the National Health Interview Survey, 1997-2002. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(11):1940-1942. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 26. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2003.27. Ellwein LB, Friedlin V, McBean AM, Lee PP. Use of eye care services among the 1991 Medicare population. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(11):1732-1743. WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 28. Javitt JC, Aiello LP, Chiang Y, Ferris FL III, Canner JK, Greenfield S. Preventive eye care in people with diabetes is cost-saving to the federal government: implications for health-care reform. Diabetes Care. 1994;17(8):909-917. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 29. Lee PP, Feldman ZW, Ostermann J, Brown DS, Sloan FA. Longitudinal prevalence of major eye diseases. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(9):1303-1310. FREE FULL TEXT 30. Institute of Medicine. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2003.31. National Eye Institute. Identification of variables that influence the receipt of eye care: focus group report. http://www.nei.nih.gov/nehep/research/REC_Focus%20Group%20Report_%20Final_10-25-05_w-Exec.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2007.32. Bliss EB, Meyers DS, Phillips RL Jr, Fryer GE, Dovey SM, Green LA. Variation in participation in health care settings associated with race and ethnicity. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(9):931-936. WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 33. Kirby JB, Taliaferro G, Zuvekas SH. Explaining racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Med Care. 2006;44(5)(suppl):I64-I72. PUBMED 34. Weinick RM, Jacobs EA, Stone LC, Ortega AN, Burstin H. Hispanic healthcare disparities: challenging the myth of a monolithic Hispanic population. Med Care. 2004;42(4):313-320. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 35. National Eye Institute. National Eye Health Education Program (NEHEP) five-year agenda. http://www.nei.nih.gov/nehep/docs/nehep_5_year_agenda_2006.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2007.36. Green CA, Pope CR. Gender, psychosocial factors and the use of medical services: a longitudinal analysis. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(10):1363-1372. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 37. Willems S, De Maesschalck S, Deveugele M, Derese A, De Maeseneer J. Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor-patient communication: does it make a difference? Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56(2):139-146. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 38. Macro O. Identification of variables that influence access to eye care: final report. http://www.nei.nih.gov/nehep/research/FinalReport9_15_05.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2007.39. Chiang YP, Wang F, Javitt JC. Office visits to ophthalmologists and other physicians for eye care among the U.S. population, 1990. Public Health Rep. 1995;110(2):147-153. WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 40. Rubin GS, Bandeen-Roche K, Huang GH; et al, SEE Project Team. The association of multiple visual impairments with self-reported visual disability: SEE Project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(1):64-72. FREE FULL TEXT 41. Javitt JC. Preventing blindness in Americans: the need for eye health education. Surv Ophthalmol. 1995;40(1):41-44. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 42. Vitale S, Cotch MF, Sperduto R, Ellwein L. Costs of refractive correction of distance vision impairment in the United States, 1999-2002. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(12):2163-2170. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 43. Vitale S, Cotch MF, Sperduto RD. Prevalence of visual impairment in the United States. JAMA. 2006;295(18):2158-2163. FREE FULL TEXT 44. Coleman AL, Yu F, Keeler E, Mangione CM. Treatment of uncorrected refractive error improves vision-specific quality of life. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(6):883-890. FULL TEXT | WEB OF SCIENCE | PUBMED 45. Lamoureux EL, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, Rees G, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. The effectiveness of low-vision rehabilitation on participation in daily living and quality of life. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(4):1476-1482. FREE FULL TEXT

SECTION EDITOR: PAUL P. LEE, MD

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Is Universal Vision Care Coverage the Best Way to Get People to See Their Eye Care Providers?
Steven M. Kymes and Kevin D. Frick
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(3):335-336.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Primary Care Provider Views of the Current Referral-to-Eye-Care Process: Focus Group Results
Holley and Lee
IOVS 2010;51:1866-1872.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is Universal Vision Care Coverage the Best Way to Get People to See Their Eye Care Providers?
Kymes and Frick
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:335-336.
FULL TEXT