Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): a nested cross-sectional assessment of falls risk within a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the feasibility of using the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) Falls Risk Tool Kit during community-based eye health screenings to assess falls risk of participants enrolled in the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-Up Study (NYC-SIGHT). METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of data from a 5-year prospective, cluster-randomised clinical trial conducted in affordable housing developments in New York City in adults age 40 years and older. Prescreening questions determined whether participants were at risk of falling. STEADI tests classified participants at low, moderate or high risk of falling. Multivariate logistic regression determined odds of falls risk of all enrolled participants. RESULTS: 708 participants completed the eye health screening; 351 (49.6%) performed STEADI tests; mean age: 71.0 years (SD±11.3); 72.1% female; 53.6% Black, non-Hispanic, 37.6% Hispanic/Latino. Level of falls risk: 32 (9.1%) low, 188 (53.6%) moderate and 131 (37.3%) high. Individuals age >80 (OR 5.921, 95% CI (2.383 to 14.708), p=0.000), had blurry vision (OR 1.978, 95% CI (1.186 to 3.300), p=0.009), high blood pressure (OR 2.131, 95% CI (1.252 to 3.628), p=0.005), arthritis (OR 2.29876, 95% CI (1.362 to 3.875), p=0.002) or foot problems (OR 5.239, 95% CI (2.947 to 9.314), p=0.000) had significantly higher odds of falling, emergency department visits or hospitalisation due to falling. CONCLUSION: This study detected a significant amount of falls risk in an underserved population. The STEADI Falls Risk screening questions were easy for eye care providers to ask, were highly predictive of falls risk and may be adequate for referral to occupational health and/or physical therapy.

Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Vision and refractive error results.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Optometrists can play a key role in providing access to eye care in underserved populations by organising community-based eye health screenings that include optometric exams to detect vision impairment and uncorrected refractive error. BACKGROUND: Community-based eye health screenings and optometric exams were conducted in the NYC-SIGHT Study. METHODS: A sub-analysis of vision impairment and refractive error results within a 5-year prospective, cluster-randomised clinical trial. Eligible individuals (age ≥40 years) were recruited from 10 affordable housing developments in Upper Manhattan. Developments were randomised into usual care (received glasses prescription only) and intervention (free glasses) groups. Participants with 6/12 visual acuity or worse, intraocular pressure 23-29 mmHg, or an unreadable fundus image were scheduled with the study optometrist for refraction and a non-dilated exam. Visual improvement data were obtained by comparing the presenting acuity at screening compared to the best corrected acuity after refraction by the optometrist. Chi-square, two-sample t-tests, and a stepwise multivariate logistic regression model were used to determined factors associated with improvable visual impairment. RESULTS: Seven hundred and eight participants completed screening, 308 received an optometric exam. Those with improvable vision impairment (n = 251), mean age: 69.8 years, 70.5% female, 53% African American, 39.8% Hispanic, >95% had health insurance. Refractive error diagnosed in 87.8% of the participants; lines of improvement: 2 lines (n = 59), 3 to 5 lines (n = 120), and ≥6 lines (n = 72). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that participants with visual acuity 6/12 or worse (odds ratio 16.041, 95% confidence interval 6.009 to 42.822, p = 0.000) or a normal fundus image (odds ratio 2.783, 95% confidence interval 1.001 to 7.740, p = 0.05) had significantly higher odds of improvable vision impairment. CONCLUSION: This innovative, targeted community-based study included an optometrist who detected high rates of refractive error and improvable vision impairment in an underserved population living in New York City.

Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Baseline Results and Costs of a Cluster-Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To describe the 15-month baseline results and costs of the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study, which aims to investigate whether innovative community-based eye health screening can improve early detection and management of glaucoma and other eye diseases among high-risk populations. DESIGN: Five-year prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Individuals aged 40+ years were recruited from public housing buildings in New York City for an eye health screening (visual acuity (VA) with correction, intraocular pressure measurements (IOP), and fundus photography). Participants with VA 20/40 or worse, IOP 23-29 mm Hg, or an unreadable fundus image failed the screening and were scheduled for an optometric examination at the same location; those with an abnormal image were referred to ophthalmology. A cost analysis was conducted alongside the study. RESULTS: A total of 708 participants were screened; mean age 68.6±11.9 years, female (65.1%), African American (51.8%) and Hispanic (42%). 78.4% (n = 555) failed the eye health screening; 35% (n= 250) had an abnormal image and were also referred to ophthalmology. 308 participants attended the optometric exam; 218 were referred to ophthalmology. Overall, 66.1% were referred to ophthalmology. The cost per participant to deliver the eye health screening and optometric examination was $180.88. The cost per case of eye disease detected was $273.64. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative study in public housing developments targeted high-risk populations, provided access to eye-care, and improved early detection of ocular diseases in New York City. The study has identified strategies to overcoming barriers to eye care to reduce eye health disparities.