BMJ public health · 2026
Association between local household income and paediatric visual outcomes: a retrospective cross-sectional study of a mobile school-based eye clinic in Orange County, California.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rezaei Kimia, Shah Jainam, Hong John D, Choi Elliot H, Shahraki Kourosh, Walker Kimberly R, Storch Annabelle M, Bui Joseph H, Espinoza Jennifer, Torres Diana, Suh Donny W
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Socio-economic status (SES) influences paediatric visual health by affecting eye care access, refractive error prevalence and spectacle provision. This study examines the link between household income and paediatric vision outcomes in Orange County, California, USA using data from the University of California, Irvine EyeMobile Pediatric Clinic (2021-2024).
METHODS: Vision screening was conducted on 15 842 children (ages 3-10). Subsequent comprehensive eye examinations were performed on 3350 children who failed initial screening. Socio-economic stratification was based on zip-code-level median household income (MHI), categorised as below-average or above-average for Orange County. A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of examination data compared visual acuity, refractive error and spectacle provision rates between the two SES groups.
RESULTS: Children from below-average MHI areas had higher screening failure rates than those from above-average MHI areas (24.6% vs 18.5%) and a higher odds of screening failure (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.57). They also demonstrated a higher need for spectacles (70.3% vs 64.8%), with an increased odds of requiring spectacles (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.56). The prevalence of astigmatism was higher among children from areas with below-average MHI (75.3% vs 66.1%), corresponding to a significantly higher odds of astigmatism (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.79). Best-corrected distance visual acuity improved with the provision of spectacles in both income groups; however, children from lower-income communities were more likely to present with uncorrected visual impairment during screening, consistent with the higher screening failure rates observed.
CONCLUSION: Children from lower-income communities demonstrated higher rates of uncorrected visual impairment and a greater need for vision care services, while children from higher-income communities also faced substantial unmet vision needs. A mobile school-based vision screening programme, such as the EyeMobile, could significantly benefit both groups by promoting equitable access to vision care.
METHODS: Vision screening was conducted on 15 842 children (ages 3-10). Subsequent comprehensive eye examinations were performed on 3350 children who failed initial screening. Socio-economic stratification was based on zip-code-level median household income (MHI), categorised as below-average or above-average for Orange County. A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of examination data compared visual acuity, refractive error and spectacle provision rates between the two SES groups.
RESULTS: Children from below-average MHI areas had higher screening failure rates than those from above-average MHI areas (24.6% vs 18.5%) and a higher odds of screening failure (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.57). They also demonstrated a higher need for spectacles (70.3% vs 64.8%), with an increased odds of requiring spectacles (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.56). The prevalence of astigmatism was higher among children from areas with below-average MHI (75.3% vs 66.1%), corresponding to a significantly higher odds of astigmatism (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.79). Best-corrected distance visual acuity improved with the provision of spectacles in both income groups; however, children from lower-income communities were more likely to present with uncorrected visual impairment during screening, consistent with the higher screening failure rates observed.
CONCLUSION: Children from lower-income communities demonstrated higher rates of uncorrected visual impairment and a greater need for vision care services, while children from higher-income communities also faced substantial unmet vision needs. A mobile school-based vision screening programme, such as the EyeMobile, could significantly benefit both groups by promoting equitable access to vision care.