Patterns and determinants of incident cataract surgery in China from 2011 to 2015 using a nationally representative longitudinal database

ObjectivesTo investigate incident cataract surgery and to investigate determinants of cataract surgery uptake in Chinese adults.DesignThis nationally representative longitudinal study recorded self-reported incident cataract surgery, and measured biological, clinical and socioeconomical characterist...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2023-06, Vol.13 (6), p.e069702-e069702
Hauptverfasser: Jan, Catherine, Jin, Xin, Dong, Yanhui, Butt, Thomas, Chang, Robert, Keay, Lisa, He, Mingguang, Friedman, David, Congdon, Nathan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ObjectivesTo investigate incident cataract surgery and to investigate determinants of cataract surgery uptake in Chinese adults.DesignThis nationally representative longitudinal study recorded self-reported incident cataract surgery, and measured biological, clinical and socioeconomical characteristics at baseline and endline.SettingIn the first stage, 150 county-level units were randomly chosen with a probability-proportional-to-size sampling technique from a sampling frame containing all county-level units. The sample was stratified by region and within region by urban district or rural county and per capita gross domestic product. The final sample of 150 counties fell within 28 provinces of China.ParticipantsUrban and rural Chinese persons aged 45 years and older.Primary and secondary outcome measuresIncident cataract surgery (primary outcome) and the factors associated with incident cataract surgery (secondary outcome).ResultsAmong 16 663 people enrolled in 2011, 13 705 (82.2%) attended follow-up in 2015. Among these, 167 (1.22%) reported incident cataract surgery. Those receiving surgery were significantly older (66.2±8.79 vs 58.3±9.18, p≤0.001) and more likely to report: illiteracy (44.9% vs 27.1%, p
ISSN:2044-6055
2044-6055
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069702