Community visual field screening: Prevalence of follow-up and factors associated with follow-up of participants with abnormal frequency doubling perimetry technology results

Steven L. Mansberger, Beth Edmunds, Chris A. Johnson, Kyle J. Kent, George A. Cioffi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: To determine if a community screening with Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry (FDT) results in a high proportion of follow-up with an eye care provider and the factors associated with follow-up. Design:Cross-sectional study. Setting: Telephone survey Methods: We conducted a telephone survey of participants with abnormal results 3-6 months after the community screening. Results: We were able to interview 121 participants (57% of 212 eligible subjects). Sixty-nine percent (83 of 121) of participants visited an eye care provider after the screening. Patients were more likely to attain an eye exam if they were female, older, or had an educational level of high school or more (p < 0.05). Of those participants who did not visit an eye care provider, 41% (18/38) did not believe the results of the test, 21% (8/38) reported not having insurance or an eye care provider, 11% (4/38) did not have time for an eye exam, and 11% (4/38) reported not knowing they needed to see an eye care provider. Conclusion: A community screening program with FDT encouraged more than two thirds of participants with abnormal results to seek an eye exam. The most common reason not to attain an eye exam was failing to recognize the importance of an abnormal test result.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)134-140
Number of pages7
JournalOphthalmic Epidemiology
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2007

Keywords

  • Frequency doubling technology perimetry
  • Glaucoma
  • Perimetry
  • Screening
  • Utilization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Ophthalmology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Community visual field screening: Prevalence of follow-up and factors associated with follow-up of participants with abnormal frequency doubling perimetry technology results'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this