目的:德国对低视力服务(LVS)的利用知之甚少。了解哪些人以及使用这些服务的频率,本研究旨在调查城市环境中的低视力辅助(LVA)设置,并描述用户特征及其特征趋势.
方法:一项基于科隆基于人群的医疗保健索赔数据库的回顾性研究(N=〜500,000),德国。研究人群由个体组成,在2014年1月至2017年12月期间,他们在四家大型法定健康保险公司连续投保,并兑换了视力辅助或失明辅助治疗的处方.我们检查了他们的社会人口统计学和临床特征。随着时间的推移,用逻辑和线性回归模型检查了特征的趋势。
结果:在约500,000人中,781个独特的个体(约0.2%)兑换了LVA处方。她们主要是女性(68.7%),60岁或以上(75.3%),患有黄斑变性(50.6%)和/或青光眼(25.9%)。在工作年龄分组中,有33.8%的人就业。在所有类型的LVA中,最常用的是视觉辅助工具(74.1%),个人最常兑换放大镜处方(35.8%),屏幕阅读器(34.3%)和/或手杖(17.1%)。在整个研究人群中,75.4%的人接受了眼科医生的处方,5.3%来自全科医生,7.1%来自其他医学专家。未发现兑换LVA处方的个体特征的显着趋势。
结论:在2014年至2017年之间,科隆的781人兑换了LVA处方。它们具有主要可以用VI的流行病学解释的特征。结果表明,兑换LVA的个体的放大倍数要求≥1.5倍和≥6倍。此外,旁边的眼科医生,全科医生和其他医学专家似乎也在提供LVA方面发挥作用,政策制定者在规划增加LVS供应的干预措施时应考虑到这一点。我们的发现为研究德国的LVS条款提供了起点。
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the utilization of low vision services (LVS) in Germany. To understand which persons and how often these services would be utilized, this
study aimed to investigate low vision aids (LVAs) provision in an urban setting and to describe user characteristics and trends in their characteristics.
METHODS: A retrospective
study based on a population-based healthcare claims database in Cologne (N = ~ 500,000), Germany. The
study population comprised individuals, who were continuously insured at four large statutory health insurers and who redeemed a prescription for visual aids or aids for blindness between January 2014 and December 2017. We examined their socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Trends in characteristics were examined with logistic and linear regression models over time.
RESULTS: Out of ~ 500,000 persons, 781 unique individuals (~ 0.2%) redeemed an LVA prescription. They were mainly female (68.7%), 60 years or older (75.3%) and had macular degeneration (50.6%) and/or glaucoma (25.9%). In the working-age subgroup, 33.8% were employed. Visual aids were most often prescribed (74.1%) and of all types of LVAs, individuals most commonly redeemed a prescription for magnifiers (35.8%), screen readers (34.3%) and/or canes (17.1%). Of the entire
study population, 75.4% received their prescription from an ophthalmologist, 5.3% from a general practitioner and 7.1% from other medical specialists. Significant trends in characteristics of individuals who redeemed an LVA prescription were not found.
CONCLUSIONS: Between 2014 and 2017, 781 individuals in Cologne redeemed an LVA prescription. They had characteristics which mostly can be explained by the epidemiology of VI. Results indicate that individuals that redeemed LVAs have a magnification requirement of ≥ 1.5-fold and ≥ 6-fold. Furthermore, next to ophthalmologists, general practitioners and other medical specialists seem to play a role in LVA provision as well, which should be taken into account by policy makers when planning interventions for increasing LVS provision. Our findings provide a starting point to examine LVS provision in Germany.