Mobility of people with retinitis pigmentosa as a function of vision and psychological variables

We investigated the mobility performance of subjects with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) as a function of clinical measures of residual vision and psychological variables. We found a highly significant correlation between clinical measures of residual vision and mobility. Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity and residual visual field together explained 64% of the variance in mobility performance in an indoor shopping mall. We suggest a simple new clinical method of scoring the visual field for predicting mobility performance, the RP Concentric Field Rating. The RP Concentric Field Rating alone explained 60% of the variance in mobility performance. In spite of expectations derived from reading the recent literature, we did not find a significant correlation between psychological variables and mobility performance in a group of subjects with RP.

Visual impairment and socioeconomic factors

BACKGROUND: Information about socioeconomic factors associated with visual impairment can assist in the design of intervention programmes. Such information was collected by the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project (Melbourne VIP). METHODS: The Melbourne VIP was a population based study of non-institutionalised permanent residents in nine suburbs of the Melbourne metropolitan area aged 40 years of age and older. A standardised eye examination was provided to eligible residents which included a structured interview. Variables of interest for this analysis were age, sex, country of birth, language spoken at home, education level, use of private health insurance, employment status, and living arrangements. Visual impairment was defined as a best corrected visual acuity < 6/18 and/or visual field constriction to within 20 degrees of fixation. RESULTS: A total of 3271 (83%) residents participated. Participants ranged in age from 40 to 98 years; 54% were female. Forty four (1.34%) were classified as visually impaired due to visual acuity and/or visual field loss. To evaluate the independent association of the significant sociodemographic variables with visual impairment, a regression model was constructed that included age, retirement status, use of private health insurance, and household arrangement. The results showed that age was the significant predictor of visual impairment (OR: 3.19; CI: 2.29-4.43), with the mean age of people with visual impairment significantly older (75.0 years) compared with people without visual impairment (58.2 years) (t test = 9.71; p = 0.0001). Of the 44 visually impaired people, 39 (87%) were aged 60 years of age and older. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that age is the most significant factor associated with visual impairment. Of some importance was the finding that people with visual impairment were less likely to have private health insurance. With the aging of the population, the number of people affected by visual impairment will increase significantly. Intervention programmes need to be established before the onset of middle age to offset the escalation of visual impairment in the older population.

A comparison of participants with non-participants in a population-based epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project

PURPOSE: Adequate participation in population-based studies in essential to ensure that the sample is representative of the population under investigation. Participants may differ from non-participants on important variables such as age, sex socioeconomic status, and general health factors. The Melbourne Visual Impairment Project (Melbourne VIP) is a population-based study designed to increase understanding of the prevalence and severity of common ocular disorders affecting people 40 years of age and over. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the potential for any non-response bias by comparing data from participants and non-participants of the Melbourne VIP. METHODS: Specific demographic and general variables were compared between the two groups. The variables included age, sex, education level, and social status. The reason for non-attendance was also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 3271 (83%) eligible residents from the 9 sample areas were screened; 46% males and 54% females. Language spoken at home was significantly associated with participation. Residents whose main language at home was not English were less likely to attend the screening centre. (OR: 0.60; CI: 0.44-0.81). The main reasons given for non-attendance by eligible residents were lack of interest (6%), too busy to attend (4%), personal illness (2%), and attend own eye specialist (2%). CONCLUSION: We believe these results will not impact significantly on the interpretation of gender and age-specific data from the Melbourne VIP.