The Utility of Recycled Eyeglasses: A Pilot Study at the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

Huang, Valerie; Kim, Mary; Mohan, Sukriti; Daskivich, Lauren Patty; Berry, Jesse L.

doi:10.5195/ijms.2021.894

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results of this cross-sectional AFEDS trial suggest that there were approximately 1 of 7 individuals with an uncorrected refractive error and approximately 1 of 20 individuals with an unmet refractive need (5.4%) in a sample of African American individuals. These data suggest that given the relatively inexpensive and easy intervention of refraction and provision of refractive correction, it may be possible to reduce this leading cause of visual impairment in this vulnerable segment of the US population, assuming these individuals subsequently used the refractive correction habitually …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…These data suggest that given the relatively inexpensive and easy intervention of refraction and provision of refractive correction, it may be possible to reduce this leading cause of visual impairment in this vulnerable segment of the US population, assuming these individuals subsequently used the refractive correction habitually. [36][37][38][39]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uncorrected Refractive Error in the African American Eye Disease Study

Dhablania,

Torres,

Burkemper

et al. 2024

JAMA Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceRefractive error remains the largest cause of correctable visual impairment in the US. Correction of refractive error will reduce visual impairment and its associated morbidity but also improve quality of life and productivity.ObjectiveTo determine the burden of and risk factors (RFs) associated with any uncorrected refractive error (UCRE) and unmet refractive need (URN) in a population-based sample of African American adults.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study, conducted from April 2014 to April 2018, included a population-based sample of self-identified African American participants 40 years and older from 30 contiguous census tracts in Inglewood, California. Participants underwent a complete ophthalmic examination and an in-home–administered questionnaire to assess sociodemographic, lifestyle, biological, medical, and health care and eye care usage RFs associated with UCRE and URN. Measurements of visual acuity (VA) were performed using a standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study protocol. Noncycloplegic automated refraction with supplemental subjective refraction was performed. UCRE was defined as an improvement of 2 or more lines with refraction in the better-seeing eye. URN was defined as an improvement of 2 or more lines with refraction in the better-seeing eye in those persons who were visually impaired. Sex- and age-specific burden of UCRE and URN were calculated, and multiple regression analyses were used to identify independent RFs. Study data were analyzed from May 2018 to December 2023.ExposuresPresence or absence of correctable refractive error.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSelf-reported sex- and age-specific prevalence of and risk indicators of UCRE and URN.ResultsOf the 7957 eligible participants in the African American Eye Disease Study (AFEDS), 6347 (80%) completed both the in-home interview and the clinical examination. Of these, 6337 participants (mean [SD] age, 61 [11] years; 3997 female [63%]) with complete refractive error data were included in the analysis. Refractive error–related correctable visual impairment was present in over two-thirds of participants with visual impairment (68.7%). The overall prevalence of any UCRE was 14.6% (925 of 6337), and the overall prevalence of any URN was 5.4% (URN1 [those with presenting VA of worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye but who could achieve 20/40 or better with correction], 157 of 2893; URN2 [those with presenting VA of worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye but who could achieve an improvement of 2 or more lines with refractive correction], 155 of 2891).Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this cross-sectional study suggest a high burden of refractive error–associated correctable refractive error in African American adults, making it the leading cause of visual impairment in this population. Providing universal coverage for vision care and prescription glasses is an affordable and achievable health care intervention that could reduce the burden of visual impairment in African American adults by over two-thirds and likely raise the quality of life and work productivity, especially in this vulnerable minority population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncorrected Refractive Error in the African American Eye Disease Study

Dhablania,

Torres,

Burkemper

et al. 2024

JAMA Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients selected the reason for not obtaining glasses elsewhere from a predetermined list. All questions were verified by a previous free glasses clinic study [10].…”

Section: Primary Survey Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A previous pilot study [10] has also assessed the immediate impact of free donated glasses clinic on 30 Los Angeles residents. Most patients (70%) indicated that cost was the most prevalent barrier.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Immediate and Long-Term Impact of Free Glasses Clinics in the Los Angeles Area

Heur¹,

Yim

2022

J Stud Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While glasses are essential to proper vision for millions, more than 250,000 Los Angeles residents in need of glasses have failed to obtain them. To combat this issue, three free glasses clinics utilizing donated glasses were implemented at Los Angeles County + University of Southern California Medical Center (LAC+USC) from November 2021 to March 2022. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of free glasses on patients. Patients who received free glasses completed primary surveys, which determined the cause behind the inaccessibility to glasses and the difficulty of life without glasses. Secondary surveys were conducted 90 days (Group 1), 150 days (Group 2), or 210 days (Group 3) after the clinic to determine the longer-term impact of free glasses. Of the 320 respondents, cost prevented 68% of patients from obtaining glasses, and patients’ daily activities without glasses were significantly harder as a result (difficulty of 3.63 out of 5). Upon receiving glasses, patients reported an improvement of 4.51 out of 5 in vision. After the allotted period, 83% of Group 1, 69% of Group 2, and 65% of Group 3 reported continue glasses use. Across all three groups, patients reported an improvement of 4.72 out of 5 in improvement of daily activities. While donated glasses did not always match patients’ prescriptions exactly, they increased ease of basic tasks (reading, walking and driving) for patients. This model could be adopted in hospitals serving patient populations where cost is a barrier.

show abstract

“…1 Other accomplishments that are noteworthy in the journal's first decade of existence include the indexing of multiple publications in PubMed Central (PMC). 1,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Another major accomplishment can be appreciated when looking at the journal's success as it pertains to funding of the research that is published. Medical students under the mentorship of investigators with funding from the National Institute of Health (NIH) of the United States have specifically chosen the IJMS to publish their work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%