TABLE 1.
Sex- and Age-Specific Prevalence of Uncorrected Refractive Error and Unmet Refractive Need among LALES Participants
| Sex Frequency (%) | Age Group Frequency (%) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uncorrected Refractive Error Improvement |
Male (n = 2556) |
Female (n = 3573) |
Total (n = 6129) |
P | 40–49 (n = 2361) |
50–59 (n = 1853) |
60–69 (n = 1189) |
70–79 (n = 583) |
≥80 (n = 143) |
Total (n = 6129) |
P |
| ≥2Lines* | 370 (14.5) | 556 (15.1) | 926 (15.1) | 0.24 | 251 (10.6) | 299 (16.1) | 244 (20.5) | 102 (17.5) | 30 (21.0) | 926 (15.1) | <0.0001 |
| Sex Frequency (%) | Age Group Frequency (%) | ||||||||||
| Unmet Refractive Need | Male (n = 869) | Female (n = 1536) | Total (n = 2405) | P | 40–49 (n = 538) | 50–59 (n = 752) | 60–69 (n = 648) | 70–79 (n = 384) | ≥80 (n = 83) | Total (n = 2405) | P |
| Definition1† | 87 (10.0) | 126 (8.2) | 213 (8.9) | 0.13 | 41 (7.6) | 53 (7.0) | 55 (8.5) | 41 (10.7) | 23 (27.7) | 213 (8.9) | <0.0001 |
| Sex Frequency (%) | Age Group Frequency (%) | ||||||||||
| Unmet Refractive Need | Male (n = 822) | Female (n = 1456) | Total (n = 2278) | P | 40–49 (n = 521) | 50–59 (n = 715) | 60–69 (n = 610) | 70–79 (n = 354) | ≥80 (n = 78) | Total (n = 2278) | P |
| Definition2‡ | 88 (10.7) | 130 (8.9) | 218 (9.6) | 0.17 | 42 (8.1) | 54 (7.6) | 59 (9.7) | 40 (11.3) | 23 (29.5) | 218 (9.6) | <0.0001 |
*
Uncorrected refractive error was defined as an improvement of two or more lines in visual acuity in the better seeing eye after refraction of the same eye.
†
Participants, with or without existing correction, who had a presenting visual acuity of worse than 20/40 in the better seeing eye but could achieve 20/40 or better with correction in that same eye.
‡
Participants, with or without existing correction, who had a presenting visual acuity of worse than 20/40 in the better seeing eye but could achieve an improvement in two or more lines with correction in that same eye.