MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-perspective development strategies were employed in designing EyeQVS. The questionnaire items were constructed using the working backward technique, compiling common vision disorders from the literature and face validation using expert panels. Face validation and usability assessment were performed on EyeQVS. The vision screening was carried out using EyeQVS and single test visual acuity screening method. The full eye examination included visual acuity, refraction, binocular vision and ocular health assessment. The visual profile of indigenous people (Orang Bateq) at Kampung Bengoi and Kampung Atok, Jerantut, Pahang was analysed using EyeQVS, single test visual acuity screening method and full eye examination.
RESULTS: The performance of EyeQVS was affirmative in both face validation and usability. About 95% of Orang Bateq failed full eye examination, while 55% failed EyeQVS screening. None of them failed single test vision screening. Binocular disorders and dry eye problems were commonly found in Orang Bateq. EyeQVS unearthed more various vision problems compared to the single test vision screening (visual acuity alone) as a screening tool in a remote location.
CONCLUSION: EyeQVS can screen for binocular disorders and dry eyes problem commonly found among indigenous people, which might be missed using a single-test visual acuity screening approach. EyeQVS is a practical alternative for vision screening in places where financial or location hinders eye healthcare access.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare habitual visual acuity in a sample of young children using two versions of the single Lea symbols charts with different crowding features.
METHODS: Monocular habitual visual acuity was measured in a sample of 77 young children aged between 4 and 6 years using crowded Lea symbols charts with either flanking bars separated from the central symbol by 0.5 optotype width or flanking Lea optotypes separated from the central symbol by 1.0 optotype width.
RESULTS: Mean visual acuity was higher (i.e., lower logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) with the Lea symbols crowded using flanking optotypes, equivalent to about 1.5 optotype difference. Visual acuity measured with the two charts was significantly correlated; however, the 95% limits of agreement were larger than expected from repeatability studies using Lea symbols.
CONCLUSIONS: Lea symbols with flanking optotypes resulted in higher visual acuity than the Lea symbols with flanking bars, probably as a result of differences in the crowding effect. The two charts showed insufficient agreement, and we do not recommend their use interchangeably. We recommend using the Lea symbols with flanking bars because of the closer flanker-target separation.
METHODS: A total of 229 community-dwelling older adults aged 60 years or older participated in this study. Variables were measured using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), Revised University of California at Los Angeles Loneliness Scale (R-UCLA), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
RESULTS: There was an independent association between DSI and quality of life (P < .05) and between DSI and hearing loss alone and cognitive function (P < .05) in older adults. In addition, higher education was associated with better quality of life and cognitive function.
CONCLUSIONS: DSI is a significant factor affecting the quality of life and cognitive function in older adults. Sociodemographic factors such as education play an important role in improving quality of life and cognitive function. Thus, increasing the awareness of this disability is important to ensure that older adults receive the necessary support services and rehabilitation to improve their level of independence.