Yonge Andrea V, Swenor Bonnielin K, Miller Rhonda, Goldhammer Victoria, West Sheila K, Friedman David S, Gitlin Laura N, Ramulu Pradeep Y
Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Center for Innovative Care in Aging, School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Ophthalmology. 2017 Apr;124(4):562-571. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.11.032. Epub 2016 Dec 22.
To characterize fall-related hazards in the homes of persons with suspected or diagnosed glaucoma, and to determine whether those with worse visual field (VF) damage have fewer home hazards.
Cross-sectional study using baseline (2013-2015) data from the ongoing Falls in Glaucoma Study (FIGS).
One-hundred seventy-four of 245 (71.0%) FIGS participants agreeing to the home assessment.
Participants' homes were assessed using the Home Environment Assessment for the Visually Impaired (HEAVI). A single evaluator assessed up to 127 potential hazards in 8 home regions. In the clinic, binocular contrast sensitivity (CS) and better-eye visual acuity (VA) were evaluated, and 24-2 VFs were obtained to calculate average integrated VF (IVF) sensitivity.
Total number of home hazards.
No significant visual or demographic differences were noted between participants who did and did not complete the home assessment (P > 0.09 for all measures). Mean age among those completing the home assessment (n = 174) was 71.1 years, and IVF sensitivity ranged from 5.6 to 33.4 dB (mean = 27.2 dB, standard deviation [SD] = 4.0 dB). The mean number of items graded per home was 85.2 (SD = 13.2), and an average of 32.7 (38.3%) were identified as hazards. IVF sensitivity, CS, and VA were not associated with total home hazards or the number of hazards in any given room (P > 0.06 for all visual measures and rooms). The bathroom contained the greatest number of hazards (mean = 7.9; 54.2% of graded items classified as hazardous), and the most common hazards identified in at least 1 room were ambient lighting <300 lux and exposed light bulbs. Only 27.9% of graded rooms had adequate lighting. IVF sensitivity, CS, and VA were not associated with home lighting levels (P > 0.18 for all), but brighter room lighting was noted in the homes of participants with higher median income (P < 0.001).
Multiple home fall hazards were identified in the study population, and hazard numbers were not lower for persons with worse VF damage, suggesting that individuals with more advanced glaucoma do not adapt their homes for safety. Further work should investigate whether addressing home hazards is an effective intervention for preventing falls in this high-risk group.
描述疑似或确诊青光眼患者家中与跌倒相关的危险因素,并确定视野(VF)损害更严重的患者家中危险因素是否更少。
采用正在进行的青光眼跌倒研究(FIGS)的基线(2013 - 2015年)数据进行横断面研究。
245名FIGS参与者中有174名(71.0%)同意进行家庭评估。
使用视力受损家庭环境评估(HEAVI)对参与者的家庭进行评估。一名评估人员对8个家庭区域中多达127种潜在危险因素进行评估。在诊所,评估双眼对比敏感度(CS)和较好眼的视力(VA),并获取24 - 2视野以计算平均综合视野(IVF)敏感度。
家庭危险因素总数。
完成和未完成家庭评估的参与者之间在视力或人口统计学方面无显著差异(所有指标P>0.09)。完成家庭评估的参与者(n = 174)平均年龄为71.1岁,IVF敏感度范围为5.6至33.4 dB(平均 = 27.2 dB,标准差[SD]=4.0 dB)。每个家庭评估的平均项目数为85.2(SD = 13.2),平均有32.7个(38.3%)被确定为危险因素。IVF敏感度、CS和VA与家庭危险因素总数或任何特定房间的危险因素数量均无关联(所有视力指标和房间P>0.06)。浴室的危险因素数量最多(平均 = 7.9;54.2%的评估项目被归类为危险),至少在1个房间中发现的最常见危险因素是环境光照<300勒克斯和灯泡外露。只有27.9%的评估房间有充足的照明。IVF敏感度、CS和VA与家庭照明水平均无关联(所有P>0.18),但收入中位数较高的参与者家中房间照明更亮(P<0.001)。
在研究人群中发现了多种家庭跌倒危险因素,VF损害更严重的患者其危险因素数量并不更少,这表明青光眼病情更严重的个体并未对其家庭进行安全改造。进一步的研究应调查解决家庭危险因素是否是预防该高危人群跌倒的有效干预措施。