Racial disparities in the use of ancillary testing to evaluate individuals with open-angle glaucoma.

Joshua D Stein, Nidhi Talwar, Alejandra M Laverne, Bin Nan, Paul R Lichter
{"title":"Racial disparities in the use of ancillary testing to evaluate individuals with open-angle glaucoma.","authors":"Joshua D Stein,&nbsp;Nidhi Talwar,&nbsp;Alejandra M Laverne,&nbsp;Bin Nan,&nbsp;Paul R Lichter","doi":"10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.1325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether racial disparities exist in the use of ancillary testing to evaluate individuals with open-angle glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified all enrollees aged 40 years and older in a large US managed care network with retinal or optic nerve conditions that could warrant the use of ancillary testing. Among persons with open-angle glaucoma or glaucoma suspects, we performed repeated-measures multivariable logistic regression to determine the odds and probabilities each year of undergoing visual field testing, fundus photography, and other ocular imaging for black, white, Hispanic, and Asian American men and women and compared the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 797 879 eligible enrollees, 149 018 individuals had open-angle glaucoma. The odds of undergoing visual field testing decreased for all groups from 2001 through 2009, decreasing most for Hispanic men and women (63% and 57%, respectively) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.31-0.43 and AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.37-0.50, respectively) and least (36%) for Asian American men (AOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.80). By comparison, the odds of undergoing other ocular imaging increased for all groups from 2001 through 2009, increasing most (173%) for black men and women (AOR, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.34-3.18 for men and AOR, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.40-3.09 for women) and least (77%) for Hispanic women (AOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.49-2.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hispanic men and women had considerably reduced odds of undergoing visual field testing and other ocular imaging compared with other groups during the decade. Although increases in glaucoma testing have been noted in recent years among Hispanic men and women for some types of ancillary tests, efforts should be made to better understand and overcome some of the persistent barriers to monitoring for glaucoma in this group.</p>","PeriodicalId":8303,"journal":{"name":"Archives of ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.1325","citationCount":"37","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.1325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether racial disparities exist in the use of ancillary testing to evaluate individuals with open-angle glaucoma.

Methods: We identified all enrollees aged 40 years and older in a large US managed care network with retinal or optic nerve conditions that could warrant the use of ancillary testing. Among persons with open-angle glaucoma or glaucoma suspects, we performed repeated-measures multivariable logistic regression to determine the odds and probabilities each year of undergoing visual field testing, fundus photography, and other ocular imaging for black, white, Hispanic, and Asian American men and women and compared the groups.

Results: Among the 797 879 eligible enrollees, 149 018 individuals had open-angle glaucoma. The odds of undergoing visual field testing decreased for all groups from 2001 through 2009, decreasing most for Hispanic men and women (63% and 57%, respectively) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.31-0.43 and AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.37-0.50, respectively) and least (36%) for Asian American men (AOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.80). By comparison, the odds of undergoing other ocular imaging increased for all groups from 2001 through 2009, increasing most (173%) for black men and women (AOR, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.34-3.18 for men and AOR, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.40-3.09 for women) and least (77%) for Hispanic women (AOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.49-2.09).

Conclusion: Hispanic men and women had considerably reduced odds of undergoing visual field testing and other ocular imaging compared with other groups during the decade. Although increases in glaucoma testing have been noted in recent years among Hispanic men and women for some types of ancillary tests, efforts should be made to better understand and overcome some of the persistent barriers to monitoring for glaucoma in this group.

使用辅助测试评估开角型青光眼个体的种族差异。
目的:探讨在开角型青光眼患者的辅助检查中是否存在种族差异。方法:我们在一个大型的美国管理医疗网络中确定了所有年龄在40岁及以上的视网膜或视神经疾病患者,这些患者可能需要使用辅助测试。在开角型青光眼或疑似青光眼患者中,我们进行了重复测量多变量logistic回归,以确定黑人、白人、西班牙裔和亚裔美国男性和女性每年接受视野测试、眼底摄影和其他眼部成像的几率和概率,并对各组进行比较。结果:在797979名符合条件的受试者中,149018人患有开角型青光眼。从2001年到2009年,所有组接受视野检查的几率都下降了,西班牙裔男性和女性下降最多(分别为63%和57%)(调整优势比[AOR], 0.37;95% CI为0.31-0.43,AOR为0.43;95% CI分别为0.37-0.50)和最少(36%)的亚裔美国男性(AOR, 0.64;95% ci, 0.51-0.80)。相比之下,从2001年到2009年,所有组接受其他眼部成像的几率都有所增加,黑人男性和女性增加最多(173%)(AOR, 2.73;男性95% CI为2.34-3.18,AOR为2.73;女性95% CI, 2.40-3.09),西班牙裔女性最少(77%)(AOR, 1.77;95% ci, 1.49-2.09)。结论:在这十年中,与其他人群相比,西班牙裔男性和女性接受视野测试和其他眼部成像的几率大大降低。尽管近年来在西班牙裔男性和女性中,青光眼检测在某些辅助测试中有所增加,但应努力更好地了解和克服该群体中监测青光眼的一些持续障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archives of ophthalmology
Archives of ophthalmology 医学-眼科学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信