National Academies Press: OpenBook

Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow (2016)

Chapter: 3 The Impact of Vision Loss

« Previous: 2 Understanding the Epidemiology of Vision Loss and Impairment in the United States
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

3

The Impact of Vision Loss

Vision loss has a significant impact on the lives of those who experience it as well as on their families, their friends, and society. The complete loss or the deterioration of existing eyesight can feel frightening and overwhelming, leaving those affected to wonder about their ability to maintain their independence, pay for needed medical care, retain employment, and provide for themselves and their families. The health consequences associated with vision loss extend well beyond the eye and visual system. Vision loss can affect one’s quality of life (QOL), independence, and mobility and has been linked to falls, injury, and worsened status in domains spanning mental health, cognition, social function, employment, and educational attainment. Although confounding factors likely contribute to some of the harms that have been associated with vision impairment, testimony from visually impaired persons speaks to the significant role that vision plays in health, vocation, and social well-being.

The economic impact of vision loss is also substantial. One national study commissioned by Prevent Blindness found that direct medical expenses, other direct expenses, loss of productivity, and other indirect costs for visual disorders across all age groups were approximately $139 billion in 2013 dollars (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013), with direct costs for the under-40 population reaching $14.5 billion dollars (Wittenborn et al., 2013). These costs affect not only national health care expenditures, but also related expenses and the resources of individuals and their families. For example, Köberlein and colleagues (2013) found that the time spent by caregivers increases substantially as vision decreases.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

This chapter explores the impact of chronic vision loss in the United States—both in terms of its financial costs and its effects on QOL. The first two sections of the chapter details the consequences of vision impairment and the relationship between chronic vision impairment and other chronic conditions. The third section of this chapter provides an overview of the economic impact of vision loss on individuals, insurers, and society, including estimates of direct and indirect costs, and life years lost. The final section discusses the state of cost-effectiveness research for clinical eye and vision care.

CONSEQUENCES OF VISION IMPAIRMENT

Quality of Life

Vision impairment is associated with a reduced QOL, which is a “complex trait that encompasses vision functioning, symptoms, emotional well-being, social relationships, concerns, and convenience as they are affected by vision” (Lamoureux and Pesudovs, 2011, p. 195). Numerous studies have shown that vision impairment is often associated with various negative health outcomes and poor QOL (Chia et al., 2006; Langelaan et al., 2007). A recent study using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data from 22 states examined unadjusted health-related QOL among individuals ages 40 to 64 years by visual impairment status and found that the percentage of individuals reporting life dissatisfaction, fair or poor reported health, physical and mental unhealthy days, and days of limited activity increased as the self-reported severity of vision impairment increased (Crews et al., 2016b) (see Table 3-1). An earlier study found similar results among people ages 65 and older (Crews et al., 2014). Based on a variety of measurement instruments, reduced QOL has been related to the severity of disease in glaucoma, cataract, age-related macular degeneration, and strabismus (Chai et al., 2009; Chatziralli et al., 2012; Cheng et al., 2015; Freedman et al., 2014; Hassell et al., 2006; Orta et al., 2015). Although greater emphasis is traditionally placed on the better-seeing eye’s role in visual function, one study concluded that the worse-seeing eye contributes importantly to patients’ estimates of vision-related QOL, particularly when the underlying eye disease affects peripheral vision (e.g., in the case of glaucoma) (Hirneiss, 2014).

A study by Rein and colleagues (2007) found that the QOL begins to slowly decline with the onset of vision loss, and then decreases more precipitously as measures of visual field defects increase. A systematic literature review of studies that reported QOL in patients with central vision loss or peripheral vision loss, and found that both types of vision loss were associated with similar degrees of detriment to QOL, although “different

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

TABLE 3-1 Unadjusted Health-Related Quality of Life Among Those Ages 40 to 60 by Visual Impairment Status in 22 States,a 2006 to 2010, United States

Health-Related Quality of Life Measure n Total % (95% CI) No Difficulty Seeing % (95% CI) Little Difficulty Seeing % (95% CI) Moderate/Severe Difficulty Seeing % (95% CI)
Life dissatisfaction (yes) 6,915 5.8 3.7 6.0 13.3
(5.6–6.1) (3.5–4.0) (5.6–6.5) (12.3–14.3)
Disability (yes) 27,991 24.8 19.3 27.4 41.2
(24.3–25.4) (18.6–19.9) (26.2–28.5) (39.7–42.8)
Self-reported health (fair/poor) 19,182 17.1 12.4 17.8 33.0
(16.6–17.6) (11.8–13.0) (16.9–18.7) (31.4–34.5)
14 to 30 physical unhealthy days 14,196 12.4 9.2 12.7 23.7
(12.0–12.8) (8.7–9.7) (12.0–13.5) (22.4–25.1)
14 to 30 mental unhealthy days 12,386 11.0 7.7 11.7 21.7
(10.6–11.4) (7.3–8.2) (11.0–12.4) (20.4–23.1)
14 to 30 activity limitation days 9,571 8.2 5.5 8.5 17.8
(7.9–8.6) (5.2–5.9) (7.9–9.1) (16.6–19.1)

NOTES: a The 22 states using the BRFSS vision module at least once in the years 2006–2010 were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

CI = confidence interval.

SOURCE: Crews et al., 2016b.

domains were affected” which “might be a function of the pathology of diseases” (Evans et al., 2009, p. 433). A recent Korean study, using the EQ-5D instrument1 examined QOL scores based on whether participants were visually impaired2 and whether they had 1 of 14 chronic conditions. The authors found that QOL scores in persons with each of the 14 chronic conditions, excepting coronary artery disease, were lower among individuals with that condition alone than individuals who also had any co-existing

___________________

1 The EQ-5D is a generic instrument used to measure health-related QOL. The tool rates the impact of disease on a scale of 0 to 1 with a lower score indicating greater effect of the health condition. The EQ-5D has five dimensions—mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression.

2 The authors defined “mild visual impairment” as visual acuity between 20/32 and 20/63; “moderate visual impairment” as visual acuity between 20/80 and 20/60; and “severe visual impairment” as visual acuity worse than or equal to 20/200.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

vision impairment (Park et al., 2015). The impact of vision impairment on people with chronic conditions is explored further later in this chapter.

Two studies indicated that the QOL impact of vision loss may be perceived differently by health care providers than by the patients themselves. One study administered time-trade-off utilities to Canadian medical students and patients for different levels of vision loss (anchors were death = 0 and perfect vision = 1.0); the study found that medical students tended to underestimate the impact of vision loss (Chaudry et al., 2015). In a similar study in China, utility values for mild glaucoma and severe glaucoma were obtained from glaucoma patients and ophthalmologists; the ophthalmologists’ utility ratings for mild glaucoma were significantly higher than the patients’, suggesting that physicians may underestimate the impact of mild glaucoma on QOL (Zhang et al., 2015).

Dependence

Loss of vision affects patients’ ability to work or care for themselves (or others), and it affects numerous casual activities such as reading, socializing, and pursuing hobbies (Brown et al., 2014). Vision impairment makes it more difficult to perform the basic self-care activities of daily living such as eating and dressing as well as instrumental activities of daily living such as shopping, financial management, medication management, and driving (Brown et al., 2014; Haymes et al., 2002; Whitson et al., 2007, 2014). Most studies have found that vision loss has a greater impact on dependency in instrumental activities of daily living than in basic activities of daily living. The instrumental activities of daily living are critical to one’s ability to function in modern society. In particular, the loss of near vision affects one’s ability to perform a variety of tasks that involve reading (e.g., getting information from medication labels, balancing bank statements, or following recipes), recognizing faces and images (e.g., socializing, playing cards, using a smartphone), or manipulating small objects (e.g., sewing, replacing batteries). One cross-sectional study found that individuals with visual impairment, defined as a best-corrected binocular presenting visual acuity of 20/30 or worse, had greater disability across functional measures, such as task performance, walking speeds, and driving when compared to people with normal vision and even uncorrected refractive error3 (Zebardast et al., 2015). Visual field deficits affect one’s ability to perform tasks that require ambulation in challenging settings (e.g., moving along crowded city streets, negotiating stairwells) or the use of peripheral vision (e.g., driving).

___________________

3 Uncorrected refractive error was defined as a binocular visual acuity of less than or equal to 20/30 that improved to greater than 20/30 with subjective refraction.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Due to the challenges that vision impairment imposes for independent living, older adults with vision impairment may be more likely to require long-term care. In the Australian Blue Mountains Eye Study, with each line of reduction in presenting visual acuity at baseline, there was a 7 percent increased risk of subsequent nursing home placement (Wang et al., 2003). For participants in the Beaver Dam Eye Study, the odds ratio for nursing home placement was 4.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.34, 7.64) for low best-corrected visual acuity in the better eye, 5.00 (95% CI = 2.28, 10.94) for poor near vision, and 2.40 (95% CI = 1.46, 3.92) for poor contrast sensitivity, after adjustment for age, sex, self-rated health, and arthritis (Klein et al., 2003).

For persons with vision loss who desire to be a part of the workforce, vision impairment often poses barriers to employment opportunities (O’Day, 1999). Unfortunately, employment statistics pertaining to Americans with vision loss are lacking because available nationally representative data sources, such as the U.S. Census, group persons with vision impairment with all people who have sensory impairments or with people with sensory or communication impairments (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

Mobility and Falls

In a person with intact eyesight, the primary sense used to navigate three-dimensional space is vision. Mobility is therefore greatly affected by vision loss, whether resulting from changes in visual acuity, visual fields, depth perception, or contrast sensitivity (Bibby et al., 2007; Lord and Dayhew, 2001; Marron and Bailey, 1982). In the Salisbury Eye Evaluation (SEE) project, vision impairment (defined by visual acuity or visual field deficit) was significantly associated with self-reported difficulty with walking or going up or down steps (Swenor et al., 2013). Also in the SEE project, visual field deficits—but not visual acuity or contrast sensitivity deficits—were predictive of a slower-than-usual gait speed while navigating an obstacle course (Patel et al., 2006). A study from the United Kingdom found that 46 percent of frail elderly individuals admitted for hip fracture in two hospital districts had visual impairment, most frequently untreated cataract (49 percent) and macular degeneration (21 percent), but also uncorrected refractive error (17 percent); the visually impaired hip fracture patients were less likely than those without vision impairment to be under an eye provider’s care and more likely to live in areas of social deprivation (Cox et al., 2005). In the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study, 16.3 percent of participants referred to vision rehabilitation at 28 U.S. centers indicated that one of their chief vision-related problems was mobility (Brown et al., 2014).

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Multiple peer-reviewed studies have documented a relationship between vision impairment and falls (Crews et al., 2016a; Lord, 2006). A 2016 study by Crews and colleagues that used 2014 BRFSS data to analyze the state-specific annual prevalence of falls among persons aged 65 years or older found that 46.7 percent of persons with severe vision impairment (state prevalence range 30.8–59.1 percent) and 27.7 percent of older adults without such impairment (state prevalence range 20.4–32.4 percent) reported having fallen during the previous year (Crews et al., 2016a). The visual parameters that have been strongly and consistently associated with falls include poor contrast sensitivity, reduced depth perception, and visual field loss (de Boer et al., 2004; Ivers et al., 1998; Klein et al., 2003; Lord and Dayhew, 2001; Lord et al., 1991, 1994; Nevitt et al., 1989). A review of studies that reported the univariate relationship between visual deficits (defined variously) and falls found that the relative risk ratios across studies was 2.5 (CI = 1.6, 3.5) (Rubenstein and Josephson, 2002).

Evidence is limited or conflicting on the need for vision assessment and specific interventions to reduce falls among visually impaired populations. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force determined that vision correction was among several potential interventions that “lack[ed] sufficient evidence for or against use in prevention of falls in community-dwelling older adults” (Moyer, 2012, p. 200; see also, Schneider et al., 2012). Unfortunately, the visual deficits most strongly linked to fall risk (contrast sensitivity, depth perception, and visual field deficits) are generally less amenable to remediation than visual acuity. Other factors such as weakness, other chronic conditions, and the use of medications are also associated with falls, suggesting that successful interventions to reduce falls in visually impaired populations will require a multi-pronged approach (Steinman et al., 2011). Evidence is needed to determine which training aspects, equipment, and environmental modifications are most effective at reducing falls and improving mobility. However, it is the committee’s assessment that there remains a role for vision rehabilitation in mitigating fall risk associated with vision loss.

Fractures

Vision impairment has been shown to be associated with an increased risk of fractures in multiple studies. In the Framingham Eye Study, which included a subset of participants from the Framingham Study Cohort, those participants with visual acuity worse than 20/100 were more than twice as likely to have had hip fractures than participants with visual acuity of 20/25 or better (relative risk [RR] = 2.17; 95% CI = 1.24, 3.80) (Felson et al., 1989). In the EPIDOS Prospective Study, among a prospective cohort of 7,575 French women, those with visual acuity of 2/10 (using the decimal Snellen fraction, thus equivalent to 20/100) or worse had a RR of 4.3 (95%

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

CI = 3.1, 6.1) of hip fracture compared to those with visual acuity better than 7/10 (roughly equivalent to 20/30) (RR = 1.0) (Dargent-Molina et al., 1996). Various other aspects of visual impairment besides poor visual acuity have been shown to be associated with an increased fracture risk. In the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, white women in the lowest quartile of depth perception measures were estimated to have a 40 percent increased risk of fractures compared with women in the other three quartiles (RR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.0, 1.9), and the risk of fractures increased by 20 percent for each standard deviation decrease in low-frequency contrast sensitivity (RR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.0, 1.5) (Cummings et al., 1995). Furthermore, in the same cohort, women with mild, moderate, or severe binocular visual field loss had an increased risk of hip fractures when compared with women without binocular visual field loss, and women with moderate or severe visual field loss had an increased risk of non-hip and non-spine fractures compared with women without binocular visual field loss (Coleman et al., 2009).

Studies have suggested that reversing vision impairment from cataract may be protective against fractures. A randomized controlled trial that evaluated expedited versus routinely scheduled cataract surgery in 306 women found that women with expedited cataract surgery had a 67 percent lower risk of fractures within 1 year after surgery than women with routinely scheduled surgery (RR = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.1, 1.0) (Harwood et al., 2005). A large study of more than 1.1 million men and women with cataract in the national U.S. Medicare database found that compared to patients with cataract who did not undergo surgery, patients with cataract surgery had a 16 percent lower risk of hip fracture (odds ratio [OR] = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81, 0.87) and a 5 percent lower risk of any fracture (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.93, 0.97). Furthermore, this protective association was modified by the effects of age and systemic disease burden, and the apparent protective relationship between surgery and fracture, based on having a high Charlson Comorbidity Index score, was even stronger among participants who were elderly or ill (Tseng et al., 2012).

The protective association between cataract surgery and fractures may extend beyond a reduction in fracture risk. In a recent study of the same large population of Medicare beneficiaries with cataract, those who had cataract surgery experienced 27 percent decreased risk in long-term mortality compared with those without cataract surgery (hazards ratio [HR] = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.72, 0.74) (Tseng et al., 2016). Similar to what was seen in the study of cataract surgery and fractures, the protective association between cataract surgery and mortality was modified by the effects of age and systemic disease burden, where patients who were elderly or who had a moderate burden of systemic disease experienced even stronger protective effects than the overall population. Although this study did not examine the

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

mechanisms of the protective effect between cataract surgery and mortality and the study design does not permit conclusions about causation, the reduction in the risk of fractures and accidents was proposed as a contributing factor in the reduced risk of death. The protective association between cataract surgery and mortality in this study was supported by additional data from two earlier studies in the Blue Mountains region, west of Sydney, Australia, both of which demonstrated that patients with vision improvement after cataract surgery had decreased mortality risk compared with patients with vision impairment due to cataract who had not undergone surgery or those with persistent vision impairment after cataract surgery (Fong et al., 2013, 2014).

Subsequent Injury

People with vision loss are at higher risk for several types of injury. Of these, the link between vision loss and fall-related injuries has been most clearly documented. In a population-based cohort of Latinos in California, a greater risk of injurious falls was reported in those with both central vision impairment (OR = 2.76; 95% CI = 1.10, 7.02) and peripheral vision impairment (OR = 1.40; 95% CI = 0.94, 2.05) (Patino et al., 2010). A loss of visual field was associated with fall-related fractures, and a relationship between a recently acquired decline in visual acuity and falls with fracture was observed in the Blue Mountain Eye Study (Hong et al., 2014; Klein et al., 2003). Interestingly, both falls and falls with fracture were more likely in participants with a unilateral, rather than bilateral, visual acuity deficit, which is similar to the findings of an earlier study, suggesting that poor depth perception may be a contributor to falls (Felson et al., 1989). Indeed, poor depth perception has been associated with hip fracture in other epidemiological studies (Cummings et al., 1995). Poor contrast sensitivity is also associated with risk of fall-related fractures (de Boer et al., 2004).

In a prospective study of seniors between the ages of 75 and 80 years, lowered vision4 at baseline was associated with an increased risk of injurious accidents requiring hospitalization over 10 years of follow-up (Kulmala et al., 2008). A visual acuity worse than 0.3 on the Landolt ring chart (roughly equivalent to 20/65) was not associated with a risk of injurious accidents, possibly because persons with more severe visual impairment restricted their activities, resulting in less opportunity for injury. However, in a separate study that used the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)

___________________

4 Visual acuity was assessed using the Landolt ring chart, which consists of 13 lines in which visual acuity is scored from 0.125 (worst), if the person can only see the first line, to 2.0 (best) if the person can correctly see the last line. Visual acuity between 0.3 and 0.5 in the better eye was defined as lowered vision, and vision better than 0.5 was defined as normal vision.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

to follow more than 100,000 adults for up to 7 years, severe bilateral vision impairment was associated with a risk of death due to unintentional injury (HR = 7.4; 95% CI = 3.0, 17.8) (Lee et al., 2003).

Mental Health

Compared to people with normal vision, those with vision impairment are at a higher risk for depression, anxiety, and other psychological problems (Kempen et al., 2012). Among older adults with vision impairment, the rates of depression and anxiety are significantly higher than among both individuals of similar ages without vision impairment and those of similar ages suffering from other chronic conditions, such as asthma or chronic bronchitis, heart conditions, and hypertension (Kempen et al., 2012). Distress related to vision loss is more strongly correlated with depression than other key risk factors such as negative life events or poor health status (Rees et al., 2010). Among visually impaired individuals, those with depressive symptoms report more functional limitations. The reasons for the relationship between depression and poor visual function are unclear and may be bi-directional, but patient-level differences in eye disease and general medical condition did not account for the observed relationship (Rovner and Casten, 2002; Rovner et al., 2006). One randomized, controlled trial of an integrated mental health and vision rehabilitation program (compared with vision rehabilitation with non-directed supportive therapy) for patients with macular degeneration and subsyndromal depressive symptoms found significantly reduced rates of depression symptoms and better functional outcomes in the intervention group (Rovner et al., 2014). This work suggests that some of the functional and affective consequences of vision loss are remediable.

As discussed in Chapter 2, children with uncorrected refractive error are more likely to underperform on some metrics of academic performance (Kulp et al., 2016). Academic problems have been found to be negatively associated with anxiety, with the frequency increasing with age in both children and adolescents (Mazzone et al., 2007). Similarly, among adolescents, vision impairment is associated with an increased prevalence of psychopathological symptoms, including depression and anxiety (Garaigordobil and Bernarás, 2009). An analysis of data from NHIS did not show evidence for a direct relationship between vision impairment and death from suicide (HR = 1.50; 95% CI = 0.90, 2.49); however, the study did indicate an indirect effect of visual impairment on death from suicide due to poorer self-rated health (HR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.08) and the number of non-ocular health conditions (HR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.24). These results suggest that people with vision impairment may be at greater risk of suicide due to vision impairment’s association with poor general health (Lam et al., 2008).

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Cognition

Several studies have found that cognitive impairment is more prevalent and progresses more rapidly in older adults with vision impairment than in those without (Lin et al., 2004; Ong et al., 2013; Reyes-Ortiz et al., 2005; Rogers and Langa, 2010; Tay et al., 2006; Whitson et al., 2007). About 4 percent of community-dwelling persons over age 65 have both cognitive and vision impairments, making the co-occurrence of these problems more prevalent than such well-recognized conditions as Parkinson’s disease and emphysema (Whitson et al., 2007). People with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) have higher rates of cognitive impairment than their peers, lower scores on cognitive tests, and a higher risk of incident dementia (Baker et al., 2009; Clemons et al., 2006; Klaver et al., 1999; Pham et al., 2006; Wong et al., 2002; Woo et al., 2012). Other studies suggest that, even without dementia, AMD patients still perform more poorly on tests of verbal fluency and memory (Clemons et al., 2006; Whitson et al., 2010, 2015; Wong et al., 2002). Research has failed to demonstrate a clear genetic link between AMD and dementia (Butler et al., 2015; Souied et al., 1998). These results suggest more research is needed to fully assess the reasons behind the link between vision and cognitive impairment in adults.

In children, uncorrectable vision impairment frequently occurs in the context of comorbid conditions, making it difficult to quantify the direct impact of visual impairment and blindness on cognitive skills, academic performance, and QOL. Many children who have been diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders (genetic or acquired) have been found to also have an associated vision problem that has led to visual impairment. Current research focuses on determining the prevalence of these eye health and vision disorders that occur with the underlying neurodevelopmental diagnosis (Salt and Sargent, 2014). For example, children with cerebral palsy have been found to have a higher prevalence of strabismus, visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error, eye movement disorders, and visual perceptual deficits than normally sighted children of the same age (Lew et al., 2015; Salt and Sargent, 2014). A higher rate of vision impairment has also been documented for children with Down syndrome (Cregg et al., 2003). It is difficult to ascertain the influence of the vision loss on cognitive or academic function in diagnoses that are already associated with cognitive impairment. One study demonstrated that children diagnosed with toxoplasmosis who present with reduced vision perform more poorly than children diagnosed with toxoplasmosis without vision impairment on verbal and performance measure of intellectual ability (Roizen et al., 2006). A meta-analysis on children with cerebral palsy found that visual perceptual deficits were prevalent in those children but none of the studies had a control comparison group (Ego et al., 2015). These children often perform

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

below the level expected for their chronological ages, yet they have neither been categorized as visually impaired, nor referred for services (Flanagan et al., 2003).

Although an association exists between vision impairment—as well as some specific eye disorders—and cognition, the mechanisms underlying this relationship are unclear. One possibility is that diseases of the eye have a negative effect on cognitive processes, either directly or indirectly. In people with vision impairment, the loss of cognitively stimulating activities, such as reading, may diminish other cognitive abilities (Lindenberger and Baltes, 1994). Additionally, the brain is known to change in response to decreased visual input, and these changes may affect regions or neuronal pathways that support cognitive processes (Liu et al., 2007, 2010; Pascual-Leone et al., 2005). A second possibility is the “common cause” theory, which holds that genetic, environmental, or medical risk factors cause disease in the brain and eye simultaneously (Klaver et al., 1999; Lindenberger and Baltes, 1994). Another possibility is that confounding factors, such as behavior and economic status, contribute to the observed relationship between vision impairment and cognitive impairment.

Hearing Impairment

The prevalence of co-existing impairment in vision and hearing, also referred to as dual sensory impairment (DSI), increases markedly with age. A range from 9 to 21 percent of adults over the age of 70 possess some degree of DSI (Saunders and Echt, 2007). In an Australian cohort, the prevalence of DSI was even higher, reported to be 26.8 percent in participants ages 80 and older (Schneider et al., 2012). In a cross-sectional study of a random sample of 446 older adults (mean age 79.9 years) from Marin County, California, eight measures of visual ability were associated with risk of hearing impairment (defined as moderate bilateral hearing loss, threshold >40 dB) (Schneck et al., 2012). However, the relationship between vision impairment and hearing impairment only achieved statistical significance for three measures of visual acuity in low contrast conditions. Additional research is needed to determine whether vision loss is an independent risk factor for hearing loss and, if so, what factors underlie this relationship.

Mortality

Several studies report associations between vision impairment and an increased risk for all-cause and injury-related mortality, as compared to controls with normal vision (Christ et al., 2014; Lam et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2002, 2003; Zheng et al., 2014). One possible cause of the greater mortality

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

in visually impaired people may be their elevated risk of accidents and falls. In the longitudinal study by Christ and colleagues (2014), the relationship between worse visual acuity and mortality was mediated by disability in instrumental activities of daily living, which suggests that some deaths may result from an impaired ability for self-care and disease management.

The relationship between vision impairment and mortality is certainly confounded by medical conditions (e.g., diabetes, obesity, hypertension, autoimmune disorders), lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking, alcohol use), and socio-demographic factors (e.g., race, age, socioeconomic disadvantage). As detailed in the next section, the complicated interplay between eye health and other medical comorbidities is an important factor in monitoring and reducing the overall public health burden of vision loss.

MULTIPLE COMORBID CONDITIONS

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health defines chronic conditions as, “conditions that last a year or more and require ongoing medical attention and/or limit activities of daily living” (Goodman et al., 2013, p. 3). Chronic conditions are associated with an increased risk of “early mortality, poor functional status, unnecessary hospitalizations, adverse drug events, duplicative tests, and conflicting medical advice” (HHS, 2010, p. 2; see also, Hwang et al., 2001; Vogeli et al., 2007; Wolff et al., 2002). Expenditures related to chronic conditions are substantial, with an estimated 66 percent of total health care spending attributable to care for Americans with multiple chronic conditions (HHS, 2010). Approximately 14 percent of Medicare beneficiaries with six or more chronic conditions accounted for 46 percent of total Medicare spending in 2010, while the 32 percent of beneficiaries with one or fewer chronic conditions accounted for 7 percent of spending (CMS, 2012).

Irreversible vision impairment resulting from eye disease should be considered a chronic condition; it can amplify the adverse effects of other illnesses and injuries, and people with vision loss commonly live with multiple chronic conditions. As of 2012, 117 million people had at least one chronic condition, with one in four adults reporting two or more chronic health conditions (CDC, 2016). Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey show that among Americans over age 65 with eye disease, four out of five also had at least one of the following conditions: hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, or arthritis (Anderson and Horvath, 2004). According to a 2008 NHIS, a substantial number of people with chronic diseases reported trouble seeing: 34.8 percent of those with chronic kidney disease, 30.9 percent of those with stroke, 23.8 percent of those with coronary heart disease, 23.6 percent of those with diabetes, 22.1 percent of those with arthritis, 19.7 percent of those with patients, and 19.4 percent of those with

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

hypertension (Crews and Chou, 2012). Whether or not any causal relationship exists between vision impairment and non-ocular comorbidities, it is clear that any successful efforts to alleviate the burden of vision impairment and loss will need to take comorbidities into account.

Vision Loss Amplifies the Effects of Other Conditions

A study of individuals ages 65 and older found that patients with a visual impairment and any of several other illnesses or conditions were many times more likely to have difficulty performing basic physical and social tasks than individuals in the same age range without visual impairment and without the particular illness or condition (Crews et al., 2006). For example, elderly individuals with severe depression, visual impairment, or both were 10.0, 2.9, and 23.9 times more likely, respectively, to have moderate or severe limitations in their ability to socialize than people without either severe depression or visual impairment. Table 3-2 details the increased odds of encountering difficulty when undertaking these basic physical and social tasks among persons with visual impairment or a given comorbidity, or both. Whether or not comorbid vision impairment directly caused the excess disability (which cannot be inferred from descriptive

TABLE 3-2 Adjusted Odds Ratio for the Self-Reported Difficulty Performing Tasks Among U.S. Adults Ages 65 and Older with Vision Impairment and/or Other Condition or Disease

Disease or Condition Reference Group Condition or Disease Vision Impairment Only Condition or Disease + Vision Impairment
Physical Social Physical Social Physical Social
Diabetes 2.3 2.0 2.8 3.4 5.7 6.4
Heart problems 2.6 2.4 2.7 3.1 6.6 7.4
Hypertension 1.9 1.5 2.9 3.5 5.1 5.2
Stroke 3.9 4.2 2.7 3.2 9.5 11.5
Severe depression 7.9 10.0 2.5 2.9 19.5 23.9
Low back pain 2.4 1.9 2.9 3.2 5.9 5.7
Breathing problems 2.3 2.0 2.8 3.4 5.8 6.0
Hearing impairment 1.8 1.7 2.7 3.3 4.6 5.4
Joint symptoms 2.6 2.0 2.6 3.2 6.1 5.5

NOTES: All figures describe adjusted odds ratio of encountering moderate to severe limitations when performing either physical or social activities among persons with vision impairment or a comorbidity or both as compared to persons without a vision impairment or the relevant illness/condition. Physical activity refers to ability to walk 0.25 mile. Social activity refers to ability to socialize.

SOURCE: Adapted from Crews et al., 2006.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

data), vision impairment may help identify high-risk individuals or individuals with unmet needs who could be targeted for services and interventions across a variety of other clinical specialties.

Both cognitive impairment and vision impairment are disabling in their own right, but the co-occurrence of the two has been associated with even higher rates of disability and low self-rated health (Whitson et al., 2007, 2012a). Dual sensory impairment (concurrent vision and hearing deficits) has been associated with a higher risk of cognitive decline, disability, depression, and mortality (Gopinath et al., 2013; Heine and Browning, 2014; Lee et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2004; Schneider et al., 2011). Evidence is inconclusive regarding whether the combined effects of vision impairment and other impairments (cognition or hearing) on outcomes are synergistic or merely additive (Schneider et al., 2011; Whitson et al., 2007).

Vision Loss Complicates the Management of Other Conditions

As reviewed above, vision loss creates significant challenges in daily life. The challenge of not being able to see well can affect various vision-reliant tasks that are frequently required for good chronic disease management, including self-care (e.g., foot checks in diabetics, preparing nutritious meals) and transportation (e.g., getting to and from clinic visits). In addition, vision loss may create difficulties in medication adherence and management (e.g., reading pill bottles, ordering refills) so that individuals who develop vision loss associated with chronic conditions, such as diabetes or glaucoma, are at a disadvantage in managing those chronic conditions. For example, vision loss makes it difficult to properly administer medications such as insulin or eye drops. Thus, affected individuals are at risk of entering a “vicious cycle” of worsening health.

Other Conditions Affect the Management of Eye Disease

Comorbidities also affect patients’ ability to manage and cope with their vision impairment and eye health. One area of eye care where the impact of comorbid conditions has been studied is vision rehabilitation. Both cognitive impairment and depression have been associated with worse functional outcomes in vision rehabilitation (Rovner et al., 2002; Whitson et al., 2012b). A qualitative study of 98 older adults and their companions/caregivers in an outpatient vision rehabilitation clinic identified five themes regarding the impact of comorbid medical conditions on the patients’ experiences in vision rehabilitation (Whitson et al., 2011). Comorbidities had the following implications for the success of vision rehabilitation: (1) concurrent medical problems resulted in fluctuating health status with “good days and bad days” that were unrelated to eye disease, (2) comorbid

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

conditions (e.g., hearing impairment, cognitive impairment) often amplified communication barriers between patients and providers, (3) participants and caregivers felt “overwhelmed” by competing health care demands, (4) comorbidities tended to delay progress in vision rehabilitation programs because of unexpected health events (e.g., falls, hospitalization, disease flares), and (5) some barriers imposed by comorbid conditions seemed to be reduced by the effective involvement of an informal companion5 (Whitson et al., 2011). A second qualitative study focused on the impact of comorbid cognitive impairment in vision rehabilitation (Lawrence et al., 2009). This study interviewed 17 individuals with co-existing vision impairment and dementia, 17 family caregivers, and 18 vision or dementia health specialists involved in the patients’ care (Lawrence et al., 2009). The study found that vision-related service providers felt ill equipped to manage dementia-related needs, while visual needs were accorded a low priority by those providing dementia services; a lack of collaboration between the two services led to an overcautious approach (Lawrence et al., 2009).

Comorbidities can also affect patients’ ability to manage specific aspects of their eye care. In particular, the administration of eye drops can be challenging for patients with a limited range of motion in the neck, with arthritis or neuropathy involving the hands, or with cognitive impairments. The precise impact of these comorbidities on medication adherence and the proper administration of eye drops merits further research, but one multisite study that video-taped glaucoma patients self-administering a single drop reported that individuals with arthritis were significantly less likely to have the drop land in their eye (Sayner et al., 2015).

OVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES

Few studies are available that examine the total costs associated with all eye disease and vision impairment on a national level. A 2013 analysis of the economic burden of vision loss and eye disorders that was commissioned by Prevent Blindness estimated prevalence and costs from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data, and data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the 2011 U.S. Census, and federal budgets (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). This analysis estimated the direct and indirect costs attributable to vision loss and eye disease to be $138.9 billion in the United States in 2013 dollars and found that costs for individual states ranged from $250 million in Wyoming to more than $15.6 billion in California

___________________

5 A friend or relative with whom the participant had at least weekly contact.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

(Wittenborn and Rein, 2013).6 The direct medical costs summed across all age groups attributable to, for example, diagnosed disorders, undiagnosed visual loss, and optometry7 visits were $48.7 billion, $3.0 billion, and $2.8 billion, respectively (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). The total direct and indirect costs for eye disorders and vision loss per payer were $47.4 billion for government entities, $22.1 billion for private insurers, and $71.7 billion for patients (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013).

Table 3-3 provides a breakdown of the comprehensive costs by age group for major categories of direct and indirect costs associated with eye care in the United States. Directs costs associated with diagnosed vision impairments along with indirect costs associated with productivity loss account for approximately 70 percent of the comprehensive costs across all age groups. Medical vision aids, which include eyeglasses and contact lenses, are the next largest expense category. Nursing home expenses account for an additional 30 percent of indirect costs but are attributable only to the over-65 population. These data suggest that interventions targeting the prevention and reduction of vision impairment have the potential to reduce overall costs. Although more data are needed for a comprehensive analysis of this assertion, shifting the burden of vision expenditures away from the possible downstream consequences of severe vision impairment toward items and services that promote the earlier diagnosis and treatment of vision-threatening diseases or conditions would extend the productivity and function of populations with vision impairment.

The costs of eye disorders and subsequent vision loss are shared by the government, private insurance, and individuals, including patients and families. According to a recent analysis, the $47.4 billion that the government spends annually on eye disorders and vision loss is mostly for direct medical costs and long-term care (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). One systematic review examined the average annual expense per patient in a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries and found per-patient costs in 2011 dollars to range from $12,175 to $14,029 for moderate vision impairment, $13,154 to $16,321 for severe visual impairment, and $14,882 to $24,180 for blindness (Köberlein et al., 2013). In comparison, the authors cited a mean expense of $8,695 for patients with no vision loss as the control, indicating

___________________

6 The state cost estimates were a function of the states’ populations within each age group. State populations were identified for the age groups 0–17, 18–39, 40–64, and 65+ based on the 2011 U.S. Census data. The burden estimate was divided by age for each age group to derive per-person costs for each group, then multiplied by the state population costs for each age group. These estimates do not include state-specific unit cost or utilization estimates (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013).

7 “These costs are measured separately from other medical costs in MEPS; they are not associated with diagnosis codes and are based on non-confirmed, self-reported expenditures” (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013, p. 2).

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

TABLE 3-3 Economic Burden of Eye Disorders and Vision Loss (in millions of dollars)

Age Group Comprehensive Costs (in $ millions)
017 1839 4064 65+ All Ages
Direct costs
Diagnosed disorders $2,844 $5,067 $14,218 $26,640 $48,769
Medical vision aids $1,480 $3,335 $6,222 $2,199 $13,236
Undiagnosed vision loss $48 $474 $1,702 $798 $3,022
Aids/devices $38 $77 $81 $553 $749
Educational/school screening $651 $119 $769
Assistance programs $25 $13 $23 $145 $207
Total direct costs $5,086 $9,086 $22,246 $30,335 $66,752
Indirect costs
Productivity loss $12,978 $10,828 $24,622 $48,427
Informal care $601 $187 $1,264 $2,052
Nursing home $20,248 $20,248
Entitlement programsa $0.50 $165 $279 $1,782 $2,226
Tax deductionsa $6 $11 $10 $28
Transfer deadweight loss $47 $98 $538 $808 $1,490
Total indirect costs $648 $13,075 $11,553 $46,941 $72,217
Total economic burden $5,734 $22,161 $33,799 $77,276 $138,970
Loss of well-being measures
Disability adjusted life years lost 6.92 26.35 33.38 216.48 283.13

a Transfer payment costs are not included in total.

SOURCE: Wittenborn and Rein, 2013.

that expenses for blind individuals can sometimes be more than double the control cost at the upper end of the range (Köberlein et al., 2013). The total of all these costs is substantial, considering that Medicare had 52.2 million beneficiaries in 2013 (CMS, 2014).

Private insurers covered approximately one-third of the total, or $22.1 billion (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). As with public insurance, the majority of these costs ($20.8 billion) were related to direct medical costs and supplies (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). Costs associated with diagnosed disorders were by far the most substantial costs for private insurers, at more than $17 billion. The relatively small amount spent for medical vision aids ($2.6 billion) reflects the limited available reimbursement coverage and accounts for the high spending burden for such aids by the individual payer ($9.7 billion) (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). The rest of the costs are attributable to reimbursement for long-term care. The costs associated with diagnosed

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

blindness and vision impairment averaged (across all payers) $6,680 per year (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). By way of comparison, the annual costs for all different types of diagnosed medical disorders average $3,432 per person (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). Despite the high costs associated with vision impairment and loss, the per-person costs for vision correction average only $81 per year (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). One expert suggested that the cost to expand all required pediatric vision-related services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 to all beneficiaries covered by private insurance would range from $1 to $2 per member per month (Spahr, 2015).

Individuals paid for slightly more than half—$71.7 billion—of the total cost of eye disorders and vision loss, “largely due to productivity and informal care losses” (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013, p. 5). Of that $71.7 billion covered by individuals, direct costs accounted for approximately $15.5 billion primarily for medical vision aids ($9.7 billion), diagnosed disorders ($4.7 billion), aids and devices ($749 million), and undiagnosed vision impairment ($372 million) (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). Indirect costs accounted for more than $56 billion of the individual costs. Those indirect costs were due to productivity losses caused by reduced workforce involvement and lower wages, the costs of informal care, and long-term care costs (Wittenborn and Rein, 2013). One national survey of working age adults found that 52 percent of them had less than $1,000 on hand to pay for out-of-pocket expenses associated with the diagnosis of an unexpected serious illness; 28 percent had less than $500 (Aflac, 2015).

Figure 3-1 indicates that the costs attributed to eye and vision health increase with age across all payers and that the over-65 population is responsible for the vast majority of expenses for all payers, except private insurance. This is not surprising given the individual costs attributable to specific age-related eye diseases and conditions and the prevalence of diabetes in older populations. For example, diabetic retinopathy cost the United States $493 million in 2004, with 60 percent of the direct medical costs incurred by 40 to 60 years olds (Rein et al., 2006). Similarly, in 2009, the estimated costs to Medicare from glaucoma reached $748 million (Quigley et al., 2013). Schmier and Levine (2013) estimated the total loss in gross domestic product related to AMD was almost $42 billion in 2012 dollars. The costs attributable to individual cases vary by the severity of the disease or condition. For example, the distribution of AMD-associated costs varies by disease stage, “with greater cost for diagnosis procedures with earlier AMD and more on caregiving and institutional care with wet AMD” (Schmier and Levine, 2013). One study found a four-fold increase in direct ophthalmology-related costs between asymptomatic ocular hypertension/earliest glaucoma ($623 per year) and end-stage glaucoma/blindness ($2,511 per year) (Varma et al., 2011). The authors suggested

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Image
FIGURE 3-1 Costs by payer by age group for eye and vision health.
a “Comprehensive” is the cumulative sum of costs borne by the three payer categories: patient, government, and insurance providers.
b Government total includes transfer payment costs that are not included in “Comprehensive.”
SOURCE: Wittenborn and Rein, 2013.

that “early identification and treatment of patients with glaucoma and those with ocular hypertension at high risk of developing vision loss may reduce the individual burden of disease on [health-related quality of life] and also may minimize personal and societal economic burdens” (p. 5).

In addition to incurring direct costs related to vision care, people with vision impairment tend to experience a lower QOL and decreased health status (as discussed in this chapter), and vision loss can complicate and exacerbate other comorbid conditions, driving up costs and worsening outcomes. For example, Bramley and colleagues (2008) demonstrated among Medicare beneficiaries with glaucoma that patients with any vision loss had 46.7 percent higher costs compared with patients without vision loss; the higher costs were the result of the increased risk for nursing home admission, depression, falls, accidents, and injury. These outcomes account for some of the most substantial health expenditures. As such, in order to secure population-level improvements in the field it will be critical to understand that the costs associated with vision impairment and eye disease are borne not only by individuals, but also by their caregivers, taxpayers, and employers. Without dedicated action, society as a whole will increasingly bear the burden of the direct costs from increasing yet avoidable Medicare

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

spending and of the indirect costs from substantial lost productivity and a reduced labor force.

CONCLUSION

Vision impairment results in significant expenditures, both direct and indirect, and has the potential to affect almost every aspect of a person’s life. Vision loss affects more than one’s ability to see the world clearly. The consequences of vision impairment often negatively impact QOL, including the number of physical and mental unhealthy days and overall dissatisfaction with life. Individuals with vision impairment are also more likely to experience restrictions in their independence, mobility, and educational achievement, as well as an increased risk of falls, fractures, injuries, poor mental health, cognitive deficits, and social isolation.

Vision loss also amplifies the effects of other chronic conditions and is a chronic condition itself. People with a vision impairment and other illnesses or conditions are more likely to have difficulty performing tasks and reporting poor health. Vision loss can also complicate chronic disease management, including self-care, transportation to and from doctor’s appointments, and the proper administration of medicine. Moreover, other conditions may affect the management of eye disease, including vision rehabilitation to improve the functionality and quality of life for those with vision impairments.

No studies are available on the total costs attributable to the promotion of eye and vision health and the economic impact of vision loss in the United States. However, the few studies available that have looked at overall direct and indirect costs found that national costs are in the billions each year and vary substantially by state. Total costs also vary by age and by payer, with substantial costs incurred by individuals, including costs of caring for family members with vision impairment. Population health approaches to improve eye and vision health will need to focus on the direct and indirect costs as objective measures of the impact of vision impairment but also as measures of equity among populations most likely to be affected by vision impairment.

REFERENCES

Aflac. 2015. National trends: 2015 fact sheet: Aflac workforces report. https://www.aflac.com/docs/awr/pdf/2015-detailed-findings/2015-national-fact-sheet.pdf (accessed April 7, 2016).

Anderson, G., and J. Horvath. 2004. The growing burden of chronic disease in America. Public Health Reports 119(3):263–270.

Baker, M. L., J. J. Wang, S. Rogers, R. Klein, L. H. Kuller, E. K. Larsen, and T. Y. Wong. 2009. Early age-related macular degeneration, cognitive function, and dementia: The Cardiovascular Health Study. Archives of Ophthalmology 127(5):667–673.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Bibby, S. A., E. R. Maslin, R. McIlraith, and G. P. Soong. 2007. Vision and self-reported mobility performance in patients with low vision. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 90(2):115–123.

Bramley, T., P. Peeples, J. G. Walt, M. Juhasz, and J. E. Hansen. 2008. Impact of vision loss on costs and outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries with glaucoma. Archives of Ophthalmology 126(6):849–856.

Brown, J. C., J. E. Goldstein, T. L. Chan, R. Massof, P. Ramulu, and Low Vision Research Network Study Group. 2014. Characterizing functional complaints in patients seeking outpatient low-vision services in the United States. Ophthalmology 121(8):1655–1662, e1651.

Butler, J. M., U. Sharif, M. Ali, M. McKibbin, J. P. Thompson, R. Gale, Y. C. Yang, C. Inglehearn, and L. Paraoan. 2015. A missense variant in CST3 exerts a recessive effect on susceptibility to age-related macular degeneration resembling its association with Alzheimer’s disease. Human Genetics 134(7):705–715.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2016. Chronic disease overview. http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview (accessed April 7, 2016).

Chai, Y., Y. Shao, S. Lin, K. Xiong, W. Chen, Y. Li, J. Yi, L. Zhang, G. Tan, and J. Tang. 2009. Vision-related quality of life and emotional impact in children with strabismus: A prospective study. Journal of International Medical Research 37(4):1108–1114.

Chatziralli, I. P., T. N. Sergentanis, V. G. Peponis, L. E. Papazisis, and M. M. Moschos. 2012. Risk factors for poor vision-related quality of life among cataract patients. Evaluation of baseline data. Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 251(3):783–789.

Chaudry, I., G. C. Brown, and M. M. Brown. 2015. Medical student and patient perceptions of quality of life associated with vision loss. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology 50(3):217–224.

Cheng, H.-C., C.-Y. Guo, M.-J. Chen, Y.-C. Ko, N. Huang, and C. J. L. Liu. 2015. Patient-reported vision-related quality of life differences between superior and inferior hemifield visual field defects in primary open-angle glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmology 133(3):269–275.

Chia, E. M., P. Mitchell, E. Ojaimi, E. Rochtchina, and J. J. Wang. 2006. Assessment of vision-related quality of life in an older population subsample: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 13(6):371–377.

Christ, S. L., D. D. Zheng, B. K. Swenor, B. L. Lam, S. K. West, S. L. Tannenbaum, B. E. Munoz, and D. J. Lee. 2014. Longitudinal relationships among visual acuity, daily functional status, and mortality: The Salisbury Eye Evaluation study. JAMA Ophthalmology 132(12):1400–1406.

Clemons, T. E., M. W. Rankin, and W. L. McBee. 2006. Cognitive impairment in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study: AREDS report no. 16. Archives of Ophthalmology 124(4):537–543.

CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). 2012. Chronic conditions among Medicare beneficiaries. Baltimore, MD: CMS.

———. 2014. Medicare enrollment—National trends 19662013. Baltimore, MD: CMS. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-andReports/MedicareEnrpts/Downloads/SMI2013.pdf (accessed March 7, 2016).

Coleman, A. L., S. R. Cummings, K. E. Ensrud, F. Yu, P. Gutierrez, K. L. Stone, J. A. Cauley, K. L. Pedula, M. C. Hochberg, and C. M. Mangione. 2009. Visual field loss and risk of fractures in older women. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 57(10):1825–1832.

Cox, A., A. Blaikie, C. J. MacEwen, D. Jones, K. Thompson, D. Holding, T. Sharma, S. Miller, S. Dobson, and R. Sanders. 2005. Visual impairment in elderly patients with hip fracture: Causes and associations. Eye (London) 19(6):652–656.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Cregg, M., J. M. Woodhouse, R. E. Stewart, V. H. Pakeman, N. R. Bromham, H. L. Gunter, L. Trojanowska, M. Parker, and W. I. Fraser. 2003. Development of refractive error and strabismus in children with Down syndrome. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 44(3):1023–1030.

Crews, J., and C.-F. Chou. 2012. Vision impairment and multiple chronic conditions: Findings from the 2002, 2008 National Health Interview Survey. http://visionproblemsus.org/presentations/Crews.pdf (accessed April 7, 2016).

Crews, J. E., G. C. Jones, and J. H. Kim. 2006. Double jeopardy: The effects of comorbid conditions among older people with vision loss. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 100:824.

Crews, J. E., C. F. Chou, X. Zhang, M. M. Zack, and J. B. Saaddine. 2014. Health-related quality of life among people aged ≥65 years with self-reported visual impairment: Findings from the 2006–2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 21(5):287–296.

Crews, J. E., C.-F. Chiu-Fung Chou, J. A. Stevens, and J. B. Saadine. 2016a. Falls among persons aged > 65 years with and without severe vision impairment—United States, 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65(17):433–437.

Crews, J. E., C. F. Chou, M. M. Zack, X. Zhang, K. M. Bullard, A. R. Morse, and J. B. Saaddine. 2016b. The association of health-related quality of life with severity of visual impairment among people aged 40–64 years: Findings from the 2006–2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 23(3):145–153.

Cummings, S. R., M. C. Nevitt, W. S. Browner, K. Stone, K. M. Fox, K. E. Ensrud, J. Cauley, D. Black, and T. M. Vogt. 1995. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. New England Journal of Medicine 332(12): 767–773.

Dargent-Molina, P., F. Favier, H. Grandjean, C. Baudoin, A. Schott, E. Hausherr, P. Meunier, and G. Breart. 1996. Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: The EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet 348(9021):145–149.

de Boer, M. R., S. M. Pluijm, P. Lips, A. C. Moll, H. J. Volker-Dieben, D. J. Deeg, and G. H. van Rens. 2004. Different aspects of visual impairment as risk factors for falls and fractures in older men and women. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 19(9):1539–1547.

Ego, A., K. Lidzba, P. Brovedani, V. Belmonti, S. Gonzalez-Monge, B. Boudia, A. Ritz, and C. Cans. 2015. Visual–perceptual impairment in children with cerebral palsy: A systematic review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 57(s2):46–51.

Evans, K., S. K. Law, J. Walt, P. Buchholz, and J. Hansen. 2009. The quality of life impact of peripheral versus central vision loss with a focus on glaucoma versus age-related macular degeneration. Clinical Ophthalmology 3:433–445.

Felson, D. T., J. J. Anderson, M. T. Hannan, R. C. Milton, P. W. Wilson, and D. P. Kiel. 1989. Impaired vision and hip fracture: The Framingham Study. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 37(6):495–500.

Flanagan, N., A. Jackson, and A. Hill. 2003. Visual impairment in childhood: Insights from a community-based survey. Child: Care, Health and Development 29(6):493–499.

Fong, C. S.-U., P. Mitchell, E. Rochtchina, E. T. Teber, T. Hong, and J. J. Wang. 2013. Correction of visual impairment by cataract surgery and improved survival in older persons: The Blue Mountains Eye Study cohort. Ophthalmology 120(9):1720–1727.

Fong, C. S.-U., P. Mitchell, E. Rochtchina, T. De Loryn, A. G. Tan, and J. J. Wang. 2014. Visual impairment corrected via cataract surgery and 5-year survival in a prospective cohort. American Journal of Ophthalmology 157(1):163–170, e161.

Freedman, B. L., S. K. Jones, A. Lin, S. S. Stinnett, and K. W. Muir. 2014. Vision-related quality of life in children with glaucoma. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus 18(1):95–98.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Garaigordobil, M., and E. Bernarás. 2009. Self-concept, self-esteem, personality traits and psychopathological symptoms in adolescents with and without visual impairment. Spanish Journal of Psychology 12(01):149–160.

Goodman, R. A., S. F. Posner, E. S. Huang, A. K. Parekh, and H. K. Koh. 2013. Defining and measuring chronic conditions: Imperatives for research, policy, program, and practice. Preventing Chronic Disease 10:E66.

Gopinath, B., J. Schneider, C. M. McMahon, G. Burlutsky, S. R. Leeder, and P. Mitchell. 2013. Dual sensory impairment in older adults increases the risk of mortality: A population-based study. PLoS ONE 8(3):e55054.

Harwood, R. H., A. Foss, F. Osborn, R. Gregson, A. Zaman, and T. Masud. 2005. Falls and health status in elderly women following first eye cataract surgery: A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Ophthalmology 89(1):53–59.

Hassell, J., E. Lamoureux, and J. Keeffe. 2006. Impact of age related macular degeneration on quality of life. British Journal of Ophthalmology 90(5):593–596.

Haymes, S. A., A. W. Johnston, and A. D. Heyes. 2002. Relationship between vision impairment and ability to perform activities of daily living. Ophthalmic and Physiologic Optics 22(2):79–91.

Heine, C., and C. J. Browning. 2014. Mental health and dual sensory loss in older adults: A systematic review. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 6:83.

HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2010. Multiple chronic conditions—A strategic framework: Optimum health and quality of life for individuals with multiple chronic conditions. Washington, DC: HHS.

Hirneiss, C. 2014. The impact of a better-seeing eye and a worse-seeing eye on vision-related quality of life. Clinical Ophthalmology 8:1703–1709.

Hong, T., P. Mitchell, G. Burlutsky, C. Samarawickrama, and J. J. Wang. 2014. Visual impairment and the incidence of falls and fractures among older people: Longitudinal findings from the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 55(11):7589–7593.

Hwang, W., W. Weller, H. Ireys, and G. Anderson. 2001. Out-of-pocket medical spending for care of chronic conditions. Health Affairs (Millwood) 20(6):267–278.

Ivers, R. Q., R. G. Cumming, P. Mitchell, and K. Attebo. 1998. Visual impairment and falls in older adults: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 46(1):58–64.

Kempen, G. I., J. Ballemans, A. V. Ranchor, G. H. van Rens, and G. A. Zijlstra. 2012. The impact of low vision on activities of daily living, symptoms of depression, feelings of anxiety and social support in community-living older adults seeking vision rehabilitation services. Quality of Life Research 21(8):1405–1411.

Klaver, C. C., A. Ott, A. Hofman, J. J. Assink, M. M. Breteler, and P. T. de Jong. 1999. Is age-related maculopathy associated with Alzheimer’s disease? The Rotterdam Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 150(9):963–968.

Klein, B. E., S. E. Moss, R. Klein, K. E. Lee, and K. J. Cruickshanks. 2003. Associations of visual function with physical outcomes and limitations 5 years later in an older population: The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 110(4):644–650.

Köberlein, J., K. Beifus, C. Schaffert, and R. P. Finger. 2013. The economic burden of visual impairment and blindness: A systematic review. British Medical Journal Open 3(11):e003471.

Kulmala, J., P. Era, O. Parssinen, R. Sakari, S. Sipila, T. Rantanen, and E. Heikkinen. 2008. Lowered vision as a risk factor for injurious accidents in older people. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 20(1):25–30.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Kulp, M. T., E. Ciner, M. Maguire, B. Moore, J. Pentimonti, M. Pistilli, L. Cyert, T. R. Candy, G. Quinn, and G.-S. Ying. 2016. Uncorrected hyperopia and preschool early literacy. Ophthalmology 123(4):681–689.

Lam, B. L., S. L. Christ, D. J. Lee, D. D. Zheng, and K. L. Arheart. 2008. Reported visual impairment and risk of suicide: The 1986–1996 National Health Interview Surveys. Archives of Ophthalmology 126(7):975–980.

Lamoureux, E., and K. Pesudovs. 2011. Vision-specific quality-of-life research: A need to improve the quality. American Journal of Ophthalmology 151(2):195–197, e192.

Langelaan, M., M. R. de Boer, R. M. van Nispen, B. Wouters, A. C. Moll, and G. H. van Rens. 2007. Impact of visual impairment on quality of life: A comparison with quality of life in the general population and with other chronic conditions. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 14(3):119–126.

Lawrence, V., J. Murray, D. Ffytche, and S. Banerjee. 2009. “Out of sight, out of mind”: A qualitative study of visual impairment and dementia from three perspectives. International Psychogeriatrics 21(3):511–518.

Lee, D. J., O. Gomez-Marin, B. L. Lam, and D. D. Zheng. 2002. Visual acuity impairment and mortality in U.S. adults. Archives of Ophthalmology 120(11):1544–1550.

———. 2003. Visual impairment and unintentional injury mortality: The National Health Interview Survey 1986–1994. American Journal of Ophthalmology 136(6): 1152–1154.

Lee, D. J., O. Gomez-Marin, B. L. Lam, D. D. Zheng, K. L. Arheart, S. L. Christ, and A. J. Caban. 2007. Severity of concurrent visual and hearing impairment and mortality: The 1986–1994 National Health Interview Survey. Journal of Aging Health 19(3): 382–396.

Lew, H., H. S. Lee, J. Y. Lee, J. Song, K. Min, and M. Kim. 2015. Possible linkage between visual and motor development in children with cerebral palsy. Pediatric Neurology 52(3):338–343, e331.

Lin, M. Y., P. R. Gutierrez, K. L. Stone, K. Yaffe, K. E. Ensrud, H. A. Fink, C. A. Sarkisian, A. L. Coleman, and C. M. Mangione. 2004. Vision impairment and combined vision and hearing impairment predict cognitive and functional decline in older women. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 52(12):1996–2002.

Lindenberger, U., and P. B. Baltes. 1994. Sensory functioning and intelligence in old age: A strong connection. Psychology and Aging 9(3):339–355.

Liu, T., S. Cheung, R. Schuchard, C. Glielmi, X. Hu, S. He, and G. E. Legge. 2010. Incomplete cortical reorganization in macular degeneration. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 51(12):6826–6834.

Liu, Y., C. Yu, M. Liang, J. Li, L. Tian, Y. Zhou, W. Qin, K. Li, and T. Jiang. 2007. Whole brain functional connectivity in the early blind. Brain 130(Pt 8):2085–2096.

Lord, S. R. 2006. Visual risk factors for falls in older people. Age and Ageing 35(Suppl 2):ii42–ii45.

Lord, S. R., and J. Dayhew. 2001. Visual risk factors for falls in older people. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 49(5):508–515.

Lord, S. R., R. D. Clark, and I. W. Webster. 1991. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in relation to falls in an elderly population. Age and Ageing 20(3):175–181.

Lord, S. R., J. A. Ward, P. Williams, and K. J. Anstey. 1994. Physiological factors associated with falls in older community-dwelling women. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 42(10):1110–1117.

Marron, J. A., and I. L. Bailey. 1982. Visual factors and orientation-mobility performance. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics 59(5):413–426.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Mazzone, L., F. Ducci, M. C. Scoto, E. Passaniti, V. G. D’Arrigo, and B. Vitiello. 2007. The role of anxiety symptoms in school performance in a community sample of children and adolescents. BMC Public Health 7(1):1–6.

Moyer, V. A. 2012. Prevention of falls in community-dwelling older adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 157(3):197–204.

Nevitt, M. C., S. R. Cummings, S. Kidd, and D. Black. 1989. Risk factors for recurrent nonsyncopal falls. A prospective study. JAMA 261(18):2663–2668.

O’Day, B. 1999. Employment barriers for people with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 93(10):627–642.

Ong, S. Y., M. K. Ikram, B. A. Haaland, C. Y. Cheng, S. M. Saw, T. Y. Wong, and C. Y. Cheung. 2013. Myopia and cognitive dysfunction: The Singapore Malay Eye Study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 54(1):799–803.

Orta, A. Ö., Z. K. Öztürker, S. Ö. Erkul, Ş. Bayraktar, and O. F. Yilmaz. 2015. The correlation between glaucomatous visual field loss and vision-related quality of life. Journal of Glaucoma 24(5):e121–e127.

Park, Y., J. A. Shin, S. W. Yang, H. W. Yim, H. S. Kim, Y.-H. Park, and Epidemiologic Survey Committee of the Korean Ophthalmologic Society. 2015. The relationship between visual impairment and health-related quality of life in Korean adults: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2008–2012). PLoS ONE 10(7):e0132779.

Pascual-Leone, A., A. Amedi, F. Fregni, and L. B. Merabet. 2005. The plastic human brain cortex. Annual Reviews of Neuroscience 28:377–401.

Patel, I., K. A. Turano, A. T. Broman, K. Bandeen-Roche, B. Munoz, and S. K. West. 2006. Measures of visual function and percentage of preferred walking speed in older adults: The Salisbury Eye Evaluation project. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 47(1):65–71.

Patino, C. M., R. McKean-Cowdin, S. P. Azen, J. C. Allison, F. Choudhury, and R. Varma. 2010. Central and peripheral visual impairment and the risk of falls and falls with injury. Ophthalmology 117(2):199–206, e191.

Pham, T. Q., A. Kifley, P. Mitchell, and J. J. Wang. 2006. Relation of age-related macular degeneration and cognitive impairment in an older population. Gerontology 52(6):353–358.

Quigley, H. A., S. D. Cassard, E. W. Gower, P. Y. Ramulu, H. D. Jampel, and D. S. Friedman. 2013. The cost of glaucoma care provided to Medicare beneficiaries from 2002 to 2009. Ophthalmology 120(11):2249–2257.

Rees, G., H. W. Tee, M. Marella, E. Fenwick, M. Dirani, and E. L. Lamoureux. 2010. Vision-specific distress and depressive symptoms in people with vision impairment. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 51(6):2891–2896.

Rein, D. B., P. Zhang, K. E. Wirth, P. P. Lee, T. J. Hoerger, N. McCall, R. Klein, J. M. Tielsch, S. Vijan and J. Saaddine. 2006. The economic burden of major adult visual disorders in the United States. Archives of Ophthalmology 124(12):1754–1760.

Rein, D. B., K. E. Wirth, C. A. Johnson, and P. P. Lee. 2007. Estimating quality-adjusted life year losses associated with visual field deficits using methodological approaches. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 14(4):258–264.

Reyes-Ortiz, C. A., Y. F. Kuo, A. R. DiNuzzo, L. A. Ray, M. A. Raji, and K. S. Markides. 2005. Near vision impairment predicts cognitive decline: Data from the Hispanic Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 53(4):681–686.

Rogers, M. A., and K. M. Langa. 2010. Untreated poor vision: A contributing factor to late-life dementia. American Journal of Epidemiology 171(6):728–735.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Roizen, N., K. Kasza, T. Karrison, M. Mets, A. G. Noble, K. Boyer, C. Swisher, P. Meier, J. Remington, and J. Jalbrzikowski. 2006. Impact of visual impairment on measures of cognitive function for children with congenital toxoplasmosis: Implications for compensatory intervention strategies. Pediatrics 118(2):e379–e390.

Rovner, B. W., and R. J. Casten. 2002. Activity loss and depression in age-related macular degeneration. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 10(3):305–310.

Rovner, B. W., R. J. Casten, and W. S. Tasman. 2002. Effect of depression on vision function in age-related macular degeneration. Archives of Ophthalmology 120(8):1041–1044.

Rovner, B. W., R. J. Casten, M. T. Hegel, and W. S. Tasman. 2006. Minimal depression and vision function in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 113(10):1743–1747.

Rovner, B. W., R. J. Casten, M. T. Hegel, R. W. Massof, B. E. Leiby, A. C. Ho, and W. S. Tasman. 2014. Low vision depression prevention trial in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 121(11):2204–2211.

Rubenstein, L. Z., and K. R. Josephson. 2002. The epidemiology of falls and syncope. Clinical Geriatric Medicine 18(2):141–158.

Salt, A., and J. Sargent. 2014. Common visual problems in children with disability. Archives of Disease in Childhood 99(12):1163–1168.

Saunders, G. H., and K. V. Echt. 2007. An overview of dual sensory impairment in older adults: Perspectives for rehabilitation. Trends in Amplification 11(4):243–258.

Sayner, R., D. M. Carpenter, A. L. Robin, S. J. Blalock, K. W. Muir, M. Vitko, M. E. Hartnett, S. D. Lawrence, A. L. Giangiacomo, G. Tudor, J. A. Goldsmith, and B. Sleath. 2015. How glaucoma patient characteristics, self-efficacy and patient-provider communication are associated with eye drop technique. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice 24(2):78–85.

Schmier, J. K., and J. A. Levine. 2013. Economic impact of progression of age-related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmoligica 93(2):105–121.

Schneck, M. E., L. A. Lott, G. Haegerstrom-Portnoy, and J. A. Brabyn. 2012. Association between hearing and vision impairments in older adults. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 32(1):45–52.

Schneider, J. M., B. Gopinath, C. M. McMahon, S. R. Leeder, P. Mitchell, and J. J. Wang. 2011. Dual sensory impairment in older age. Journal of Aging and Health 23(8):1309–1324.

Schneider, J., B. Gopinath, C. McMahon, E. Teber, S. R. Leeder, J. J. Wang, and P. Mitchell. 2012. Prevalence and 5-year incidence of dual sensory impairment in an older Australian population. Annals of Epidemiology 22(4):295–301.

Souied, E. H., P. Benlian, P. Amouyel, J. Feingold, J. P. Lagarde, A. Munnich, J. Kaplan, G. Coscas, and G. Soubrane. 1998. The epsilon 4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene as a potential protective factor for exudative age-related macular degeneration. American Journal of Ophthalmology 125(3):353–359.

Spahr, J. 2015. Presentation at second meeting on Public Health Approaches to Promote Eye Health and Reduce Vision Impairment. Washington, DC.

Steinman, B., A. Nguyen, J. Pynoos, and N. Leland. 2011. Falls-prevention interventions for persons who are blind or visually impaired. Insight: Research and Practice in Vision Impairment and Blindness 4:83–91.

Swenor, B. K., B. Munoz, and S. K. West. 2013. Does visual impairment affect mobility over time? The Salisbury Eye Evaluation study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 54(12):7683–7690.

Tay, T., J. J. Wang, A. Kifley, R. Lindley, P. Newall, and P. Mitchell. 2006. Sensory and cognitive association in older persons: Findings from an older Australian population. Gerontology 52(6):386–394.

Tseng, V. L., F. Yu, F. Lum, and A. L. Coleman. 2012. Risk of fractures following cataract surgery in Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA 308(5):493–501.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

———. 2016. Cataract surgery and mortality in the United States Medicare population. Ophthalmology.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. American Community Survey (ACS). http://www.census.gov/people/disability/methodology/acs.html (accessed June 7, 2016).

Varma, R., P. P. Lee, I. Goldberg, and S. Kotak. 2011. An assessment of the health and economic burdens of glaucoma. American Journal of Ophthalmology 152(4):515–522.

Vogeli, C., A. E. Shields, T. A. Lee, T. B. Gibson, W. D. Marder, K. B. Weiss, and D. Blumenthal. 2007. Multiple chronic conditions: Prevalence, health consequences, and implications for quality, care management, and costs. Journal of General and Internal Medicine 22(Suppl 3):391–395.

Wang, J. J., P. Mitchell, R. G. Cumming, W. Smith, and Blue Mountains Eye Study. 2003. Visual impairment and nursing home placement in older Australians: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 10(1):3–13.

Whitson, H. E., S. W. Cousins, B. M. Burchett, C. F. Hybels, C. F. Pieper, and H. J. Cohen. 2007. The combined effect of visual impairment and cognitive impairment on disability in older people. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 55(6):885–891.

Whitson, H. E., D. Ansah, D. Whitaker, G. Potter, S. W. Cousins, H. MacDonald, C. F. Pieper, L. Landerman, D. C. Steffens, and H. J. Cohen. 2010. Prevalence and patterns of comorbid cognitive impairment in low vision rehabilitation for macular disease. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 50(2):209–212.

Whitson, H. E., K. Steinhauser, N. Ammarell, D. Whitaker, S. W. Cousins, D. Ansah, L. L. Sanders, and H. J. Cohen. 2011. Categorizing the effect of comorbidity: A qualitative study of individuals’ experiences in a low-vision rehabilitation program. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 59(10):1802–1809.

Whitson, H. E., R. Malhotra, A. Chan, D. B. Matchar, and T. Ostbye. 2012a. Comorbid visual and cognitive impairment: Relationship with disability status and self-rated health among older Singaporeans. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 26(3):310–319.

Whitson, H. E., D. Whitaker, L. L. Sanders, G. G. Potter, S. W. Cousins, D. Ansah, E. McConnell, C. F. Pieper, L. Landerman, D. C. Steffens, and H. J. Cohen. 2012b. Memory deficit associated with worse functional trajectories in older adults in low-vision rehabilitation for macular disease. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 60(11):2087–2092.

Whitson, H. E., R. Malhotra, A. Chan, D. B. Matchar, and T. Ostbye. 2014. Comorbid visual and cognitive impairment: Relationship with disability status and self-rated health among older Singaporeans. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 26(3):310–319.

Wittenborn, J., and D. Rein. 2013. Cost of vision problems: The economic burden of vision loss and eye disorders in the United States. Chicago, IL: NORC at the University of Chicago.

———. 2016 (unpublished). The potential costs and benefits of treatment for undiagnosed eye disorders. Paper prepared for the Committee on Public Health Approaches to Reduce Vision Impairment and Promote Eye Health. http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2016/UndiagnosedEyeDisordersCommissionedPaper.pdf (accessed September 15, 2016).

Wolff, J. L., B. Starfield, and G. Anderson. 2002. Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Archives of Internal Medicine 162(20):2269–2276.

Wong, T. Y., R. Klein, F. J. Nieto, S. A. Moraes, T. H. Mosley, D. J. Couper, B. E. Klein, L. L. Boland, L. D. Hubbard, and A. R. Sharrett. 2002. Is early age-related maculopathy related to cognitive function? The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. American Journal of Ophthalmology 134(6):828–835.

Woo, S. J., K. H. Park, J. Ahn, J. Y. Choe, H. Jeong, J. W. Han, T. H. Kim, and K. W. Kim. 2012. Cognitive impairment in age-related macular degeneration and geographic atrophy. Ophthalmology 119:2094–2101.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×

Zebardast, N., B. K. Swenor, S. W. van Landingham, R. W. Massof, B. Munoz, S. K. West, and P. Y. Ramulu. 2015. Comparing the impact of refractive and nonrefractive vision loss on functioning and disability. Ophthalmology 122(6):1102–1110.

Zhang, S., Y. Liang, Y. Chen, D. C. Musch, C. Zhang, and N. Wang. 2015. Utility analysis of vision-related quality of life in patients with glaucoma and different perceptions from ophthalmologists. Journal of Glaucoma 24(7):508–514.

Zheng, D. D., S. L. Christ, B. L. Lam, S. L. Tannenbaum, C. L. Bokman, K. L. Arheart, L. A. McClure, C. A. Fernandez, and D. J. Lee. 2014. Visual acuity and increased mortality: The role of allostatic load and functional status. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 55(8):5144–5150.

Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"3 The Impact of Vision Loss." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23471.
×
Page 162
Next: 4 Surveillance and Research »
Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $119.00 Buy Ebook | $94.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The ability to see deeply affects how human beings perceive and interpret the world around them. For most people, eyesight is part of everyday communication, social activities, educational and professional pursuits, the care of others, and the maintenance of personal health, independence, and mobility. Functioning eyes and vision system can reduce an adult’s risk of chronic health conditions, death, falls and injuries, social isolation, depression, and other psychological problems. In children, properly maintained eye and vision health contributes to a child’s social development, academic achievement, and better health across the lifespan.

The public generally recognizes its reliance on sight and fears its loss, but emphasis on eye and vision health, in general, has not been integrated into daily life to the same extent as other health promotion activities, such as teeth brushing; hand washing; physical and mental exercise; and various injury prevention behaviors. A larger population health approach is needed to engage a wide range of stakeholders in coordinated efforts that can sustain the scope of behavior change. The shaping of socioeconomic environments can eventually lead to new social norms that promote eye and vision health.

Making Eye Health a Population Health Imperative: Vision for Tomorrow proposes a new population-centered framework to guide action and coordination among various, and sometimes competing, stakeholders in pursuit of improved eye and vision health and health equity in the United States. Building on the momentum of previous public health efforts, this report also introduces a model for action that highlights different levels of prevention activities across a range of stakeholders and provides specific examples of how population health strategies can be translated into cohesive areas for action at federal, state, and local levels.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!