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.

Seeing Red: Associations between Historical Redlining and Present-Day Visual Impairment and Blindness.

PURPOSE: Redlining was a discriminatory housing policy in the United States that began in 1933 and denoted neighborhoods with high proportions of Black individuals as "undesirable" and a high risk for lending, which therefore excluded people from obtaining traditional insured mortgages to purchase a home. Simultaneously, realtors discouraged Black individuals from purchasing homes in predominantly non-Black neighborhoods. This resulted in decreased home ownership and wealth accumulation among Black individuals and neighborhoods with high proportions of Black individuals. This study investigated rates of visual impairment and blindness (VIB) in neighborhoods that at one time were graded for redlining. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of American Community Survey data and historical grades for redlining. PARTICIPANTS: United States census tracts (CTs) from 2010 with historical grades for redlining. METHODS: One-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, chi-square test, and logistic regression modeling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was CT percentage of residents reporting VIB and the association with historical grades for redlining. Grades were converted to numeric values (1 to 4, with higher values indicating worse grade) and aggregated over a CT based on the distribution of grades within to obtain a redlining score. Logistic regression was used to model the effect of redlining on the probability of having VIB. RESULTS: Eleven thousand six hundred sixty-eight CTs were analyzed. Logistic regression found that a 1-unit increase in average redlining score was associated with a 13.4% increased odds of VIB after controlling for CT measures of age, sex, people of color (any non-White race), state, and population size (odds ratio [OR], 1.134; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.131-1.138; P < 0.001). Similar results were observed for an additional model that adjusted for the estimated percentage of Black residents within a CT (OR, 1.180; 95% CI, 1.177-1.183; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Historical government-sanctioned residential segregation through redlining was found to be associated with higher proportions of people living with VIB in these neighborhoods today. Understanding how neighborhood segregation impacts eye health is important for planning improved mechanisms of eye care delivery to mitigate health disparities. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

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.

Large Disparities in Receipt of Glaucoma Care between Enrollees in Medicaid and Those with Commercial Health Insurance.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the type of health insurance a patient possesses and a patient's race/ethnicity affect receipt of common tests to monitor open-angle glaucoma (OAG). DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21 766 persons aged ≥40 years with newly diagnosed OAG between 2007 and 2011 enrolled in Medicaid or a large United States managed care network. METHODS: We determined the proportion of patients with newly diagnosed OAG who underwent visual field (VF) testing, fundus photography (FP), other ocular imaging (OOI), or none of these tests within the first 15 months after initial OAG diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the extent by which health insurance type and race/ethnicity affected the odds of undergoing glaucoma testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Odds ratios (OR) of undergoing VF testing, FP, OOI, or none of these tests in the 15 months after initial OAG diagnosis with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 18 372 persons with commercial health insurance and 3394 Medicaid recipients met the study inclusion criteria. The proportions of persons with commercial health insurance with newly diagnosed OAG who underwent VF, FP, and OOI were 63%, 22%, and 54%, respectively, whereas the proportions were 35%, 19%, and 30%, respectively, for Medicaid recipients. Compared with those with commercial health insurance, Medicaid recipients were 234% more likely to not receive any glaucoma testing in the 15 months after initial diagnosis (OR = 3.34; 95% CI, 3.07-3.63). After adjustment for confounders, whites with OAG enrolled in Medicaid had 198% higher odds of receiving no glaucoma testing compared with whites possessing commercial health insurance (OR = 2.98; 95% CI, 2.66-3.33). Blacks with Medicaid insurance demonstrated 291% higher odds (OR = 3.91; 95% CI, 3.40-4.49) of not receiving any glaucoma testing compared with blacks with commercial health insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of race/ethnicity, Medicaid recipients with OAG are receiving substantially less glaucoma testing compared with persons with commercial health insurance. Disparities in testing are observed across all races/ethnicities but were most notable for blacks. These findings are particularly disconcerting because blacks are more likely than whites to go blind from OAG and there are disproportionately more blacks in Medicaid. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of glaucoma care for Medicaid recipients, especially racial minorities.

Geographic Variation in the Use of Diagnostic Testing of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Open-Angle Glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To determine the extent of geographic variation in the proportion of patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma (OAG) undergoing visual field (VF) testing, fundus photography (FP), and other ocular imaging (OOI) among patients residing in different US communities. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: All enrollees with newly diagnosed OAG enrolled in a managed care network between 2001 and 2014. METHODS: We identified all persons in the plan with incident OAG residing in 201 communities across the United States. All communities contributed ≥20 enrollees. The proportion of enrollees undergoing ≥1 VF test, FP, OOI, and no testing of any type in the 2 years after first OAG diagnosis was determined for each community, and comparisons were made to assess the extent of variation in use of diagnostic testing among patients residing in the different communities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of VF testing, FP, OOI, or none of these tests in the 2 years after initial OAG diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 56675 enrollees with newly diagnosed OAG, the mean proportion of patients undergoing VF testing within 2 years of initial diagnosis was 74%±7%, ranging from as low as 51% in Rochester, Minnesota, to as high as 95% in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The mean proportion undergoing OOI was 63%±10% and varied from 34% in Palm Springs/Rancho Mira, California, to 85% in Charleston, South Carolina. The mean proportion receiving FP was 26%±10% and ranged from as low as 3% in Fresno, California, to as high as 57% in Harlingen, Texas. The proportion undergoing no glaucoma testing ranged from 0% in Binghamton, New York, to as high as 35% in 2 other communities. CONCLUSIONS: In many US communities, a high proportion of patients are undergoing testing according to established practice guidelines. However, in several communities, less than 60% of patients with newly diagnosed OAG are undergoing VF testing in the 2 years after initial OAG diagnosis, and in a few communities >1 in 4 patients have no record of glaucoma diagnostic testing of any type. Additional research is needed to understand factors driving this variation in practice patterns and its impact on patient outcomes.

Spatial Vision Inequalities: A Literature Review of the Impact of Place on Vision and Eye Health Outcomes.

"Neighborhood and built environment" is one of the five domains of social determinants of health that has been outlined by Healthy People 2030, and this domain impacts an individual's well-being, health, and quality of life. Social risk factors (SRFs) in the neighborhood and built environment domain include unstable or unsafe housing, poor access to transportation, lack of green spaces, pollution, safety concerns, and neighborhood measures of inequity. In this narrative literature review, we assess the relationship between neighborhood and built environment SRFs and eye health and vision outcomes. We explain how mapping neighborhood-level SRFs may be used to advance health equity in the field of eye health and vision care.

Place-Based Measures of Inequity and Vision Difficulty and Blindness.

Importance: Known social risk factors associated with poor visual and systemic health in the US include segregation, income inequality, and persistent poverty. Objective: To investigate the association of vision difficulty, including blindness, in neighborhoods with measures of inequity (Theil H index, Gini index, and persistent poverty). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2012-2016 American Community Survey and 2010 US census tracts as well as Theil H index, Gini index, and persistent poverty measures from PolicyMap. Data analysis was completed in July 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the number of census tract residents reporting vision difficulty and blindness (VDB) and the association with the Theil H index, Gini index, or persistent poverty, assessed using logistic regression. Results: In total, 73 198 census tracts were analyzed. For every 0.1-unit increase in Theil H index and Gini index, there was an increased odds of VDB after controlling for census tract-level median age, the percentage of the population that identified as female sex, the percentage of the population that identified as a member of a racial or ethnic minority group, state, and population size (Theil H index: odds ratio [OR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.14-1.14; P < .001]; Gini index: OR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.15-1.15; P < .001]). Persistent poverty was associated with an increased odds of VDB after controlling for census tract-level median age, the percentage of the population that identified as female sex, the percentage of the population that identified as a member of a racial or ethnic minority group, state, and population size compared with nonpersistent poverty (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.35-1.36; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, residential measures of inequity through segregation, income inequality, or persistent poverty were associated with a greater number of residents living with VDB. It is essential to understand and address how neighborhood characteristics can impact rates of VDB.

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 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.

Longitudinal visual field variability and the ability to detect glaucoma progression in black and white individuals.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate racial differences in the variability of longitudinal visual field testing in a 'real-world' clinical population, evaluate how these differences are influenced by socioeconomic status, and estimate the impact of differences in variability on the time to detect visual field progression. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used data from 1103 eyes from 751 White individuals and 428 eyes from 317 black individuals. Linear regression was performed on the standard automated perimetry mean deviation values for each eye over time. The SD of the residuals from the trend lines was calculated and used as a measure of variability for each eye. The association of race with the SD of the residuals was evaluated using a multivariable generalised estimating equation model with an interaction between race and zip code income. Computer simulations were used to estimate the time to detect visual field progression in the two racial groups. RESULTS: Black patients had larger visual field variability over time compared with white patients, even when adjusting for zip code level socioeconomic variables (SD of residuals for Black patients=1.53 dB (95% CI 1.43 to 1.64); for white patients=1.26 dB (95% CI 1.14 to 1.22); mean difference: 0.28 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.41); p<0.001). The difference in visual field variability between black and white patients was greater at lower levels of income and led to a delay in detection of glaucoma progression. CONCLUSION: Black patients had larger visual field variability compared with white patients. This relationship was strongly influenced by socioeconomic status and may partially explain racial disparities in glaucoma outcomes.

Perceptions of Respect From Clinicians by Patients in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups With Eye Disease.

IMPORTANCE: The perception of being treated with respect by clinicians may be a driver of disparities in individuals in racial and ethnic minoritie groups with eye diseases. Understanding these drivers may help identify potential interventions to reduce eye health disparities to prevent vision loss and blindness. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between racial and ethnic minority status and the perception of being treated with respect by clinicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative cohort study using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) included participants in the 2017 survey with complete data on outcomes, associated factors, and covariates. Data analysis took place from January 2021 to February 2021. Using a population-based survey conducted in the US in 2017 by the US census bureau on behalf of the National Center for Health Statistics, NHIS study participants (age ≥18 years) who self-reported having an eye disease (macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy [DR], glaucoma, cataracts) were included, and patients who self-reported as Black, Asian, other/multiple races, or Hispanic ethnicity were considered to be in racial and ethnic minority groups. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association of minority status with self-reported "always" being treated with respect by clinicians and self-reported "always" being asked about opinions/beliefs about medical care. RESULTS: Participants in racial and ethnic minority groups had 23% lower odds of reporting being treated with respect compared with non-Hispanic White patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97; P = .03). A minority of participants had 66% higher odds of reporting being asked about their beliefs (AOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.98; P < .001). For all patients, being asked about opinions/beliefs by their clinician was associated with a 5.8 times higher odds of reporting being treated with respect (AOR, 5.80; 95% CI, 4.35-7.74; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this nationally representative US population of patients with eye diseases, being a patient in a racial or ethnic minority group was associated with feeling less respected by health care professionals compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asking about opinions and beliefs, regardless of race or ethnicity, is associated with patients feeling that they are treated with respect.

Demographic, Clinical, and Psychosocial Predictors of Change in Medication Adherence in the Support, Educate, Empower Program.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether demographic, clinical, or psychosocial factors act as moderators of change in medication adherence in the Support, Educate, Empower (SEE) program. DESIGN: Prospective, single-arm pilot study with a pre-post design. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with glaucoma aged ≥ 40 years and taking ≥ 1 glaucoma medication were recruited from the University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center. Those who had electronically measured adherence ≤ 80% in the 3-month eligibility monitoring period were enrolled in the SEE program. METHODS: Medication adherence was monitored electronically during the 7-month intervention and calculated as the percentage of doses taken correctly. Change in adherence at different points in the SEE program and cumulative change in adherence were modeled with linear regression, and baseline demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors were investigated for significant associations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables associated with change in medication adherence in the SEE program. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants completed the SEE program. These participants were on average 63.9 years old (standard deviation [SD], 10.7 years), 56% (n = 22) were male, 44% (n = 17) were White, and 49% (n = 19) were Black. Medication adherence improved from an average of 59.9% (SD, 18.5%) at baseline to 83.6% (SD, 17.5%) after the final SEE session, for an increase of 23.7% (SD, 17.5%). Although participants with lower income (< $25 000 and $25 000-50 000 vs. >$50 000) had lower baseline adherence (48.4% and 64.1% vs. 70.4%), these individuals had greater increases in adherence during the first month of medication reminders (19.6% and 21.6% vs. 10.2%; P = 0.05 and P = 0.007, respectively). Participants taking fewer glaucoma medications also had significantly greater increases in adherence with medication reminders (P < 0.001). Those with higher levels of glaucoma-related distress (GD) had lower baseline adherence and greater increases in adherence with glaucoma coaching (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-level factors associated with relatively greater improvements in medication adherence through the SEE Program included lower income, fewer glaucoma medications, and increased GD. These findings demonstrate that the SEE program can improve glaucoma self-management even among participants with social and psychological barriers to medication adherence.

Disparities in Eye Care Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between telemedicine utilization and sociodemographic factors among patients seeking eye care. DESIGN: Comparative utilization analysis. METHODS: We reviewed the eye care utilization patterns of a stratified random sample of 1720 patients who were seen at the University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 30 to May 25, 2020) and their odds of having a video, phone, or in-person visit compared with having a deferred visit. Associations between independent variables and visit type were determined using a multinomial logistic regression model. RESULTS: Older patients had lower odds of having a video visit (P = .007) and higher odds of having an in-person visit (P = .023) compared with being deferred, and in the nonretina clinic sample, older patients still had lower odds of a video visit (P = .02). Non-White patients had lower odds of having an in-person visit (P < .02) in the overall sample compared with being deferred, with a similar trend seen in the retina clinic. The mean neighborhood median household income was $76,200 (±$33,500) and varied significantly (P < .0001) by race with Blacks having the lowest estimated mean income. CONCLUSION: Disparities exist in how patients accessed eye care during the COVID-19 pandemic with older patients-those for whom COVID-19 posed a higher risk of mortality-being more likely to be seen for in-person care. In our affluent participant sample, there was a trend toward non-White patients being less likely to access care. Reimbursing telemedicine solely through broadband internet connection may further exacerbate disparities in eye care.

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.

The Appropriateness of Digital Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Images for a Computer-Aided Glaucoma Screening System.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability to screen for glaucoma using a Food Drug Administration (FDA) Class II diagnostic digital fundus photography system used for diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). METHODS: All research participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination as well as non-mydriatic 45°single photograph retinal imaging centered on the macula. Optic nerve images within the 45° non-mydriatic and non-stereo DRS image were evaluated by two methods: 1) grading by three glaucoma specialists, and 2) a computer-aided automated segmentation system to determine the vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR). Using VCDR from clinical assessment as gold standard, VCDR results from two methods were compared to that from clinical assessment. Inter-grader agreement was assessed by computing intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In addition, sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: Among 245 fundus photos, 166 images met quality specifications for analysis. Fifty images were not processed by the automated system due to the poor quality of the optic disc, and 29 images did not include the optic nerve head due to the patient movement during the photo acquisition. The ICC value for the VCDR between the gold standard clinical exam and the automated system was 0.41, indicating fair agreement. The ICC value between the three ophthalmologists and the gold standard was 0.51, 0.56, and 0.69, respectively, indicating fair to moderate agreement. DISCUSSION: Assessing the VCDR on non-mydriatic and non-stereo DRS fundus photographs by either the computer-aided automated segmentation system or by glaucoma specialists showed similar fair to moderate agreement. In summary, optic nerve assessment for glaucoma from these 45° non-mydriatic and non-stereo DRS images is not yet suitable for tele-glaucoma screening.

Application of the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative Ophthalmology Data Repository for Triaging Patients With Glaucoma and Clinic Appointments During Pandemics Such as COVID-19.

Importance: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, eye care professionals caring for patients with sight-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma, have had to determine whether some patient appointments could safely get postponed, weighing the risk that the patient's glaucoma could worsen during the interim vs the morbidity risk of acquiring COVID-19 while seeking ophthalmic care. They also need to prioritize appointment rescheduling during the ramp-up phase (when pandemic-associated service reductions are eased). Objective: To describe a flexible and scalable scoring algorithm for patients with glaucoma that considers glaucoma severity and progression risk vs the presence of high-risk features for morbidity from COVID-19, using information from a large data repository. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, patients with upcoming clinic appointments for glaucoma from March 16, 2020, to April 16, 2020, at an academic institution enrolled in the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative (SOURCE) Ophthalmology Electronic Health Record Data Repository were identified. A risk stratification tool was developed that calculated a glaucoma severity and progression risk score and a COVID-19 morbidity risk score. These scores were summed to determine a total score for each patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total scores and percentages of clinic appointments recommended for rescheduling. Results: Among the 1034 patients with upcoming clinic appointments for glaucoma, the mean (SD) age was 66.7 (14.6) years. There were 575 women (55.6%), 733 White individuals (71%), and 160 Black individuals (15.5%). The mean (SD) glaucoma severity and progression risk score was 4.0 (14.4) points, the mean (SD) COVID-19 morbidity risk score was 27.2 (16.1) points, and the mean (SD) total score was 31.2 (21.4) points. During pandemic-associated reductions in services, using total score thresholds of 0, 25, and 50 points would identify 970 appointments (93.8%), 668 appointments (64.6%), and 275 appointments (26.6%), respectively, for postponement and rescheduling. The algorithm-generated total scores also helped prioritize appointment rescheduling during the ramp-up phase. Conclusions and Relevance: A tool that considers the risk of underlying ophthalmic disease progression from delayed care receipt and the morbidity risk from COVID-19 exposure was developed and implemented, facilitating the triage of upcoming ophthalmic appointments. Comparable approaches for other ophthalmic and nonophthalmic care during the COVID-19 pandemic and similar crises may be created using this methodology.