Visual Impairment from Uncorrected Refractive Error among Participants in a Novel Program to Improve Eye Care Access among Low-Income Adults in Michigan.

PURPOSE: To assess the rate of visual impairment (VI) from uncorrected refractive error (URE) and associations with demographic and socioeconomic factors among low-income patients presenting to the Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥ 18 years without acute ocular symptoms. METHODS: MI-SIGHT program participants received a telemedicine-based eye disease screening and ordered glasses through an online optical store. Participants were categorized based on refractive error (RE) status: VI from URE (presenting visual acuity [PVA], ≤ 20/50; best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA], ≥ 20/40), URE without VI (PVA, ≥ 20/40; ≥ 2-line improvement to BCVA), and no or adequately corrected RE (PVA, ≥ 20/40; < 2-line improvement to BCVA). Patient demographics, self-reported visual function, and satisfaction with glasses obtained through the program were compared among groups using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and Fisher exact testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PVA, BCVA, and presence of VI (defined as PVA ≤ 20/50). RESULTS: Of 1171 participants enrolled in the MI-SIGHT program during the first year, average age was 55.1 years (SD = 14.5), 37.7% were male, 54.1% identified as Black, and 1166 (99.6%) had both PVA and BCVA measured. VI was observed in 120 participants (10.3%); 96 had VI from URE (8.2%), 168 participants (14.4%) had URE without VI, and 878 (75.3%) had no or adequately corrected RE. A smaller percentage of participants with VI resulting from URE reported having a college degree, and a larger percentage reported income < $10 000 compared with participants with no or adequately corrected RE (3.2% vs. 14.2% [P = 0.02]; 45.5% vs. 21.6% [P < 0.0001], respectively). Visual function was lowest among participants with VI from URE, followed by those with URE without VI, and then those with no or adequately corrected RE (9-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire composite score, 67.3 ± 19.6 vs. 77.0 ± 14.4 vs. 82.2 ± 13.3, respectively; P < 0.0001). In total, 71.2% (n = 830) ordered glasses for an average cost of $36.80 ± $32.60; 97.7% were satisfied with their glasses. CONCLUSIONS: URE was the main cause of VI at 2 clinics serving low-income communities and was associated with reduced vision-related quality of life. An online optical store with lower prices made eyeglasses accessible to low-income patients. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Relationship between Unstable Housing, Food Insecurity, and Vision Status in the MI-SIGHT Community Eye Disease Screening Program.

PURPOSE: Assess rate of visual impairment (VI) from uncorrected refractive error (URE) and associations with demographic and socioeconomic factors among low-income patients presenting to the Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥ 18 years without acute ocular symptoms. METHODS: MI-SIGHT program participants received a telemedicine-based eye disease screening and ordered glasses through an online optical shop. Participants were categorized based on refractive error (RE) status: VI from URE (presenting visual acuity [PVA] ≤ 20/50, best corrected visual acuity [BCVA] ≥ 20/40), URE without VI (PVA ≥ 20/40, had ≥ 2 lines of improvement to BCVA), and no or adequately corrected RE (PVA ≥ 20/40, < 2 line improvement to BCVA). Patient demographics, self-reported visual function, and satisfaction with glasses obtained through the program were compared between groups using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and Fisher exact testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PVA, BCVA, and presence of VI (defined as PVA ≤ 20/50). RESULTS: Of 1171 participants enrolled in the MI-SIGHT program during the first year, the average age was 55.1 years (standard deviation = 14.5), 37.7% were male, 54.1% identified as Black, and 1166 (99.6%) had both PVA and BCVA measured. VI was observed in 120 (10.3%); 96 had VI from URE (8.2%), 168 (14.4%) had URE without VI, and 878 (75.3%) had no or adequately corrected RE. A smaller percentage of participants with VI from URE reported having a college degree and a larger percentage reported income < $10 000 compared to participants with no or adequately corrected RE (3.2% versus 14.2%, P = 0.02; 45.5% versus 21.6%, respectively, P < 0.0001. Visual function was lowest among participants with VI from URE, followed by those with URE without VI, and then those with no or adequately corrected RE (VFQ9 composite score 67.3 ± 19.6 versus 77.0 ± 14.4 versus 82.2 ± 13.3, respectively; P < 0.0001). 71.2% (n = 830) ordered glasses for an average cost of $36.80 ± $32.60; 97.7% were satisfied with their glasses. CONCLUSIONS: URE was the main cause of VI at 2 clinics serving low-income communities and was associated with reduced vision-related quality of life. An online optical shop with lower prices made eyeglasses accessible to low-income patients. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Social Deprivation and the Risk of Screening Positive for Glaucoma in the MI-SIGHT Telemedicine-Based Glaucoma Detection Program.

PURPOSE: To assess whether increased poverty is associated with increased risk of screening positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma in a large public screening and intervention program. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study from 2020 to 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥ 18 years old without acute ocular symptoms. METHODS: Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program participants' sociodemographic characteristics and area deprivation index (ADI) values were summarized from the clinical sites, which included a free clinic and a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). The ADI, a composite measure of neighborhood deprivation (range, 1-10; 10 is worst deprivation), was assigned on the basis of the participants' addresses. Group comparisons were performed via 2-sample t tests or Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney tests for continuous measures and chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests with Monte Carlo simulation for categorical measures; Holm adjustment was used for multiple comparisons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk factors for screening positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. RESULTS: Of the 1171 enrolled participants, 1165 (99.5%) completed the screening: 34% at the free clinic and 66% at the FQHC. Participants were on average aged 55.1 ± 14.5 years, 62% were women, 54% self-reported as Black/African-American, 34% White, 10% Hispanic or Latino, and 70% earned < $30 000 annually. The mean ADI was 7.2 ± 3.1. The FQHC had higher (worse) ADI than the free clinic (free clinic: 4.5 ± 2.9, FQHC: 8.5 ± 2.1, P < 0.0001). One-quarter (24%) of participants screened positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. Screening positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma was associated with being older (P = 0.01), identifying as Black/African-American (P = 0.0001), having an established eyecare clinician (P = 0.0005), and not driving a personal vehicle to the appointment (P = 0.001), which is a proxy for increased poverty. Participants who screened positive had worse ADI than those who screened negative (7.7 ± 2.8 vs. 7.0 ± 3.2, P = 0.002). A larger percentage of White participants screened positive at the FQHC compared with White participants at the free clinic (21.3% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.01). FQHC White participants had worse ADI than free clinic White participants (7.5 ± 2.5 vs. 3.7 ± 2.7, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Personal poverty, assessed as not driving a personal vehicle to the appointment, and neighborhood-level poverty were both associated with increased rates of screening positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Neighborhood Poverty and Clinic Attendance in the Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine Program.

PRECIS: Higher neighborhood-level poverty is associated with greater odds of missing a free eye disease screening appointment, underscoring the importance of community-based interventions to address upstream social determinants of health. PURPOSE: To investigate the association between neighborhood-level characteristics and attendance for a free eye disease screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The MI-SIGHT program is conducted in two community clinics in Southeastern Michigan. Participant-level demographics were extracted from electronic health records. Neighborhood level-characteristics including Area Deprivation Index (ADI), median household income (HHI), percent of households with >30% rent burden, percent of households without vehicles, percent of households in subsidized housing, and energy burden were obtained from the Wisconsin Neighborhood Atlas and the United States census. Logistic regression was used to model the probability of clinic visit attendance, which was the main outcome measure. RESULTS: 1431 participants were scheduled for screening appointments between July 2020 to November 2021, with a no-show rate of 23%. Individuals lived an average of 7.7 miles from each clinic (SD=8.1) and in neighborhoods with a mean ADI of 6.8 (SD=3.2, 1-10 scale where 10 is the most deprived). After adjusting for age, sex, race, and ethnicity, participants from neighborhoods with higher deprivation were more likely to have missed clinic visits. For example, there was an 8% higher odds of missed clinic visits for every 1-point increase in ADI (odds ratio, OR=1.08, P=0.020) and an 18% higher odds of a missed visit with every 10% increase in households without a vehicle (OR=1.18, P=0.013). CONCLUSION: Higher neighborhood-level poverty was associated with greater odds of missing a free eye disease screening appointment after adjusting for individual characteristics. Increased neighborhood-level resources are likely needed to bolster engagement in preventive eye care.

Association of Contrast Sensitivity With Eye Disease and Vision-Related Quality of Life.

PURPOSE: To investigate contrast sensitivity (CS) as a screening tool to detect eye disease and assess its association with both eye disease and vision-related quality of life. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Setting and population: Adults receiving care from a free clinic and a Federally Qualified Health Center in Michigan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening positive for eye disease and Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ) score. OBSERVATION: Participants received a vision exam reviewed via telemedicine for disease, completed a demographic survey, and the 9-item VFQ. The ability of CS to predict eye disease was explored and area under the curve (AUC) is reported. Logistic and linear regression were used to investigate the continuous effect of CS on the probability of screening positive for eye disease and VFQ score, respectively, adjusting for age and visual acuity. RESULTS: 1159 included participants were, on average, 54.9 ± 14.5 years old, 62% identified as female, 34% as White, 54% as Black, 10% as Hispanic/Latino, and reported mean VFQ score of 79.7 ± 15.3. CS ranged from 0.00 to 1.95 log units (mean = 1.54 ± 0.24), 21% of eyes had glaucoma, 19% cataract, 6% DR, and 2% AMD. AUCs were 0.53 to 0.73. A 0.3 log unit decrease in better eye CS was associated with increased odds of glaucoma (odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-1.67), cataract (OR = 1.35, CI = 1.05-1.72), DR (OR = 2.05, CI = 1.51-2.77), and AMD (OR = 2.08, CI = 1.10-3.91). A 0.3 log unit increase in better eye CS was associated with a 5.9 unit increase in VFQ. CONCLUSION: While CS alone is not sufficient to identify people with eye disease, it is an important measure of visual function that can add value to comprehensive eye screening.

A Screening Strategy to Mitigate Vision Impairment by Engaging Adults Who Underuse Eye Care Services.

Importance: Underuse of eye care services leads to underdiagnosed and undertreated eye disease. Objective: To assess the reasons for underuse of eye care and whether a novel, free eye disease screening program is engaging adults who are both at high risk of eye disease and were underusing eye care services. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a population-based cross-sectional study, adult participants from the first year of the Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health Through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) Program were included. The participants were recruited from primary care clinics serving 2 low-income communities. Recruitment occurred between June 28, 2020 and June 27, 2021 at the free clinic, and between January 27, 2021 and January 26, 2022 at a federally qualified health clinic. Data were analyzed from December 7, 2022, to May 29, 2024. Participants received comprehensive eye disease screening and completed surveys assessing health and prior eye care use. Risk factors for eye disease included age 65 years and older, diabetes, personal or family history of eye disease, and self-identifying as Black or African American individuals who were aged 50 years or older. Underuse of eye care was defined as no eye examination in 2 or more years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of participants who were at high risk of eye disease and underused eye care services before accessing this program. Results: A total of 1171 MI-SIGHT participants were a mean (SD) age of 55 (14.5) years; 437 (38%) identified as male; 591 (54%) self-identified as Black or African American, 101 (10%) as Hispanic or Latino, and 371 (34%) as White; 492 (43%) had high school education or less, and 696 (70%) reported an annual household income of less than $30 000. Characteristics of participants reporting not having had an eye examination in 2 years or more included 23% (n = 151) of participants 65 years and over, 33% (n = 214) of participants who self-reported diabetes, 25% (n = 130) of participants reporting a family history of glaucoma, 3% (n = 14) of those with self-reported glaucoma; and 33% (n = 202) of Black or African-American participants aged 50 years and older. In participants who reported not having had an eye examination in 2 or more years, 21% (n = 137) screened positive for glaucoma, 20% (n = 129) for cataract, 6% (n = 38) for diabetic retinopathy, and 1% (n = 9) for age-related macular degeneration. Reported reasons for why participants had not had an eye examination included no insurance (175 of 627 [28%]), no reason to go (no problem) (135 of 627 [22%]), and cost of eye examination (101 of 627 [16%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that placing eye disease detection programs in primary care clinics in underserved areas may improve eye disease detection and treatment, possibly mitigating needless vision loss in the US.

Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health Through Telemedicine Program: First-Year Outcomes and Implementation Costs.

PURPOSE: The Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health Through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program aims to engage people who are at high risk of glaucoma; we assess first-year outcomes and costs. DESIGN: Clinical cohort study. METHODS: Participants ≥18 years of age were recruited from a free clinic and a federally qualified health center in Michigan. Ophthalmic technicians in the clinics collected demographic information, visual function, ocular health history, measured visual acuity, refraction, intraocular pressure, pachymetry, pupils, and took mydriatic fundus photographs and retinal nerve fiber layer optical coherence tomography. Data were interpreted by remote ophthalmologists. During a follow-up visit, technicians shared ophthalmologist recommendations, dispensed low-cost glasses, and collected participant satisfaction. The primary outcome measures were prevalence of eye disease, visual function, program satisfaction, and costs. Observed prevalence was compared with national disease prevalence rates using z tests of proportions. RESULTS: Among 1171 participants, the average age was 55 years (SD 14.5 years), 38% were male, 54% identified as Black, 34% as White, 10% as Hispanic, 33% had less than or equal to a high school education, and 70% had an annual income <$30,000. The prevalence of visual impairment was 10.3% (national average 2.2%), glaucoma and suspected glaucoma 24% (national average 9%), macular degeneration 2.0% (national average 1.5%), and diabetic retinopathy 7.3% (national average 3.4%) (P < .0001). Seventy-one percent of participants received low-cost glasses, 41% were referred for ophthalmology follow-up, and 99% were satisfied or very satisfied with the program. Startup costs were $103,185; recurrent costs were $248,103 per clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine eye disease detection programs in low-income community clinics effectively identify high rates of pathology.

Engagement in the Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine Program: Comparing the Effect of Clinic versus Community-Based Recruitment Strategies.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of adding community-based recruitment to clinic-based recruitment to engage participants in a glaucoma detection program. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Anyone ≥ 18 years of age who does not meet exclusion criteria. METHODS: The Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program tests a novel way of improving glaucoma detection in communities with populations at high risk for disease, including people who identify as Black and Hispanic and those living with low socioeconomic status. The MI-SIGHT program is conducted in a free clinic (Ypsilanti, MI) and in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) (Flint, MI). Community engagement methods were used to identify outreach strategies to enhance recruitment. Participants were asked "How did you hear about the MI-SIGHT program?" and responses were summarized overall and by clinic and compared between clinic-based and community-based recruitment strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion recruited by location, within or outside of the clinic. RESULTS: In total, 647 participants were recruited in the first 11 months of the study, 356 (55.0%) at the free clinic over 11 months and 291 (45.0%) at the FQHC over 6 months. Participants were on average 54.4 years old (standard deviation = 14.2); 60.9% identified as female, 45.6% identified as Black, 37.8% identified as White, 9.6% identified as Hispanic, and 10.9% had less than high school education. Participants reported hearing about the MI-SIGHT program from a clinic phone call (n = 168, 26.1%), a friend (n = 112, 17.4%), nonmedical clinic staff (n = 100, 15.5%), a clinic doctor (n = 77, 11.9%), an in-clinic brochure or flyer (n = 51, 7.9%), a community flyer (n = 44, 6.8%), the clinic website or social media (n = 28, 4.3%), or an "other" source (n = 65, 10.1%). Recruiting from the community outside the medical clinics increased participation by 265% at the free clinic and 46% at the FQHC. CONCLUSIONS: The Community Advisory Board recommendation to use community-based recruitment strategies in addition to clinic-based strategies for recruitment resulted in increased program participation. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health Through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT): Baseline Methodology for Implementing and Assessing a Community-based Program.

PRECIS: The Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program leverages community-engaged research, telemedicine, and health coaching to overcome key logistical and psychosocial barriers to improve glaucoma screening in underserved communities. PURPOSE: To describe the methodology of the implementation and evaluation of the MI-SIGHT Program. METHODS: The MI-SIGHT Program uses community engagement, telemedicine, and health coaching to overcome key logistical and psychosocial barriers to glaucoma identification and care among underserved populations. The MI-SIGHT Program will be evaluated in 2 community clinics: Hamilton Community Health Network, a federally qualified health center in Flint, Michigan, and the Hope Clinic, a free clinic in Ypsilanti, Michigan. A Community Advisory Board including the research team and health care providers, administrators, and patients from both clinics will guide program implementation. An ophthalmic technician at the community clinics will conduct screening tests for glaucoma and eye disease. The data will be transmitted through electronic health record to be reviewed by an ophthalmologist who will make recommendations for follow-up care. The ophthalmic technician will conduct a return visit to fit low-or no-cost glasses, help arrange follow-up with an ophthalmologist, and provide education. Those diagnosed with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma will be randomized to standard education or personalized glaucoma education and coaching. Costs will be assessed. RESULTS: The authors hypothesize that the MI-SIGHT Program will detect a higher prevalence rate of glaucoma than that found in the general population, improve upon presenting visual acuity, enhance vision-related quality of life, and demonstrate that personalized glaucoma education and coaching improve adherence to follow-up care. CONCLUSION: The MI-SIGHT Program may serve as a model for glaucoma screening and care in high-risk communities.

Facilitators and Barriers to Glaucoma Screening Identified by Key Stakeholders in Underserved Communities: A Community-engaged Research Approach.

PRCIS: Community-engaged research (CER) enables researchers to identify community-specific barriers and facilitators to program implementation. Broadly applicable barriers to glaucoma care, such as Cost, Transportation, and Trust, and community-specific barriers, such as Language and Convenience/Access, were identified. PURPOSE: The aim was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing glaucoma screening programs in 2 community clinics. METHODS: A concurrent mixed-methods process analysis using CER. Key stakeholders-including patients, providers, and staff members-from 2 community clinics were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Interviews had 2 parts: (1) asking patients about community-based facilitators and barriers to implementing glaucoma screening and care and (2) eliciting feedback about a personalized coaching program. The transcripts were coded using Grounded Theory. Number of participants and number of representative citations were counted per theme. The qualitative analysis was coded using Dedoose 8.3.17 (Los Angeles, CA). RESULTS: Thematic saturation was reached after coding 12 interviews. 30 participants were interviewed, 13 from Hamilton Clinic (Flint, MI; 8 patients, 5 providers and staff members) and 17 from Hope Clinic (Ypsilanti, MI; 6 patients, 11 providers and staff members). The most commonly cited themes were: Priorities (98 citations, 30 participants), Knowledge (73, 26) Transportation (63, 26), Cost (60, 23), and Convenience/Access (63, 22). Broadly applicable barriers to glaucoma care, such as Cost, Transportation, and Trust were identified alongside community-specific barriers such as Language and Convenience/Access. Participants rated their likelihood to follow up with an ophthalmologist after participating in the personalized coaching program at a mean of 8.83 (on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most confident). CONCLUSIONS: CER enables researchers to identify community-specific barriers and facilitators, allowing more effective program implementation.