Unilateral Vision Loss in Elderly People in Residential Care: Prevalence, Causes and Impact on Visual Functioning: The Hyderabad Ocular Morbidity in Elderly Study (HOMES)

Figures & data

Table 1. The characteristics of participants (n = 826) examined in the HOMES study.

	Total	Unilateral VI (n)	Unilateral VI (%)	p-Value
Age group (years)				0.002
60–69	244	80	32.8
70–79	330	117	35.5
80 and above	252	118	46.8
Gender				0.476
Male	301	110	36.5
Female	525	205	39.0
Marital status				0.515
Married	199	71	35.7
Widowed/separated/single	627	243	38.8
Education level				<0.01
No Schooling	111	58	52.3
School education	529	207	39.1
Higher education	186	50	26.9
Hypertension				0.354
Yes	500	197	39.4
No	326	118	36.2
Diabetes				0.076
Yes	261	88	33.7
No	565	227	40.2
Mobility score				0.002
Immobile/Bedridden	53	30	56.6
Mobile with support	243	102	42.0
Independently mobile	530	183	34.5
Type of home				0.013
Private home	365	126	34.5
Aided/Partially paid	349	133	38.1
Free	112	56	50.0
Smoking status				0.771
Never	683	262	38.4
Current/past	143	53	37.1
Alcohol consumption				0.414
Never	689	267	38.8
Current/past	137	48	35.0
Total	826	315	38.1

Figure 1. Distribution of the causes of vision impairment (n = 315) among the elderly living in a Home for the Aged.

Table 2. Association of unilateral visual impairment with sociodemographic characteristics, systemic conditions and personal history identified using multiple logistic regression analysis (n = 826).

	Crude Odds Ratio (95% CI)	p value	Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) †	p value
Age group (years)
60–69	Reference		Reference
70–79	1.23 (0.79–1.60)	0.51	1.16 (0.80–1.68)	0.437
80 and above	1.81 (1.25–2.60)	<0.01	1.87 (1.24–2.81)	0.003
Gender
Male	Reference		Reference
Female	1.11 (0.83–1.49)	0.476	0.85 (0.56–1.30)	0.464
Education level
Higher education	Reference		Reference
School education	1.75 (1.21–2.53)	<0.01	1.70 (1.13–2.56)	0.011
No education	2.98 (1.82–4.88)	<0.01	2.62 (1.49–4.59)	0.001
Marital status
Married	Reference		Reference
Widowed/separated/single	0.90 (0.64–1.23)	0.515	0.99 (0.69–1.41)	0.944
Home type
Private	Reference		Reference
Aided/Partially paid	1.17 (0.86 0 1.59)	0.32	1.19 (0.85–1.66)	0.30
Free/Non-paying	1.90 (1.24–2.91)	<0.01	1.88 (1.16–3.04)	0.01
Diabetes
No	Reference		Reference
Yes	0.76 (0.56–1.03)	0.08	0.84 (0.60–1.17)	0.301
Hypertension
No	Reference		Reference
Yes	1.15 (0.86–1.53)	0.354	1.07 (0.79–1.47)	0.654
Smoking status
Never	Reference		Reference
Current/past	0.95 (0.65–1.37)	0.77	1.13 (0.68–1.90)	0.634
Alcohol consumption
Never	Reference		Reference
Current/past	0.85 (0.58–1.25)	0.414	0.85 (0.53–1.37)	0.512
Mobility score
Independently mobile	Reference		Reference
Mobile with support	1.37 (1.00–1.87)	0.047	1.20 (0.85–1.68)	0.299
Immobile/bedridden	2.47 (1.40–4.38)	<0.01	2.28 (1.25–4.16)	0.007

† Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of fit test for the regression model, p = 0.87

Table 3. Comparison of Indian Visual Function (INDVFQ) scores among participants with or without Unilateral Visual Impairment (UVI).

Domain of INDVFQ	Mean (SD)† Unilateral VI (n = 230)	Mean (SD)† No Unilateral VI (n = 453)	Mean difference (% difference)	p value
Mobility	26.4 (12.2)	23.8 (8.9)	2.6 (10.9)	<0.01
Activity limitation	28.1 (10.9)	25.5 (8.2)	2.6 (10.1)	<0.01
Psychosocial impact	34.5 (16.6)	30.2 (11.3)	4.3 (14.1)	<0.01
Visual symptoms	39.8 (14.1)	37.5 (13.8)	2.3 (6.1)	0.041
Overall INDVFQ score	37.7 (13.2)	34.5 (10.5)	3.2 (9.3)	<0.01

† Higher score denotes poorer visual functioning