Skip to main content

Table 2 Participant demographic and clinical characteristics

From: Understanding the visual function symptoms and associated functional impacts of phakic presbyopia

Description France (N = 10) Germany (N = 10) USA (N = 30) Total (N = 50)
Participant demographic characteristics
Age (years)
Average (range) 55.9 (41–65) 51.1 (40–63) 51.6 (40–65) 52.4 (40–65)
Sex, n (%)
 Male 2 (20.0%) 5 (50.0%) 13 (43.3%) 20 (40.0%)
 Female 8 (80.0%) 5 (50.0%) 17 (56.7%) 30 (60.0%)
Race, n (%)
 Caucasian Not appropriate to collect in France 7 (70.0%) 15 (50.0%) 22 (48.9%)
 Black/African American 1 (10.0%) 11 (36.7) 12 (26.7%)
 Asian 2 (20.0%) 2 (4.4%)
 Multi-Racial
 Other—Hispanic 3 (10.0%) 3 (6.0%)
 Missing data 1 (3.3%) 1 (2.0%)
Highest education level, n (%)
 Some high school 3 (30.0%) 2 (6.7%) 5 (10.0%)
 High school diploma or GED 1 (10.0%) 12 (40.0%) 13 (26.0%)
 Some years of college 2 (20.0%) 4 (40.0%) 9 (30.0%) 15 (30.0%)
 Certificate program 2 (20.0%) 2 (4.0%)
 University/college degree 3 (30.0%) 2 (20.0%) 6 (20.0%) 11 (22.0%)
 Graduate or professional degree 2 (20.0%) 1 (10.0%) 1 (3.3%) 4 (8.0%)
Work status, n (%)
 Working full-time 5 (50.0%) 7 (70.0%) 21 (70.0%) 33 (66.0%)
 Working part-time 2 (20.0%) 1 (10.0%) 2 (6.7%) 5 (10.0%)
 Retired 2 (20.0%) 2 (20.0%) 1 (3.3%) 5 (10.0%)
 Full-time homemaker 1 (10.0%) 3 (10.0%) 4 (8.0%)
 Looking for work 1 (4.6%) 1 (2.0%)
 Not working due to another illness 1 (3.3%) 1 (2.0%)
 Missing data 1 (3.3%) 1 (2.0%)
Participant self-reported severity of phakic presbyopia, n (%)
 Very severe 1 (10.0%) 1 (10.0%) 1 (3.3%) 3 (6.0%)
 Severe 1 (10.0%) 3 (30.0%) 6 (20.0%) 10 (20.0%)
 Moderate 7 (70.0%) 14 (46.7%) 21 (42.0%)
 Mild 1 (10.0%) 6 (60.0%) 9 (30.0%) 16 (32.0%)
Participant clinical characteristics (reported by recruiting clinician)
 Years since diagnosed, average (range)a 10.4 (0.5–20.9) 7.3 (1–17.1) 7.6 (0.2–34.6) 8.1 (0.2–34.6)
 Visual Acuity score of left eye (decimal), average (range)1 0.92 (0.6–1.0) 0.67 (0.5–0.8) 0.63 (0.2–1.0) 0.69 (0.2–1.0)
 Visual Acuity score of right eye (decimal), average (range)1 0.92 (0.6–1.0) 0.64 (0.4–0.8) 0.62 (0.3–1.0) 0.69 (0.3–1.0)
Severity of participants’ binocular DCNVA at 40 cm, n (%)
 Mild 2 (20.0%) 6 (60.0%) 14 (46.7%) 22 (44.0%)
 Moderate-severe 3 (30.0%) 4 (40.0%) 16 (53.3%) 23 (46.0%)
 Information not available 5 (50.0%) 5 (10.0%)
Severity of participants’ near ADD, n (%)
 Mild 3 (30.0%) 6 (60.0%) 14 (46.7%) 23 (46.0%)
Moderate-severe 7 (70.0%) 4 (40.0%) 16 (53.3%) 27 (54.0%)
Clinician reported myopia/near sightedness, n (%)
 None 6 (60.0%) 5 (50.0%) 18 (86.4%) 29 (58.0%)
 Mild 2 (20.0%) 2 (6.7%) 4 (8.0%)
 Moderate 1 (10.0%) 2 (6.7%) 4 (8.0%)
 High 1 (10.0%) 3 (10.0%) 4 (8.0%)
 Missing data 5 (50.0%) 5 (4.5%) 10 (20.0%)
Concomitant conditions, n (%)*
 Yes: 1 (10.0%) 2 (6.7%) 3 (6.0%)
  Posterior detachment of the left vitreous 1 (10.0%)    1 (2.0%)
  Asthma    1 (3.3%) 1 (2.0%)
  Glaucoma    1 (3.3%) 1 (2.0%)
  COPD    1 (3.3%) 1 (2.0%)
Current treatment for phakic presbyopia, n (%)
 Glasses ~ : 7 (70.0%) 5 (50.0%) 22 (73.3%) 34 (68.0%)
  Unspecified 1/7 (14.3%) 5/5(100%) 14/22 (63.6%) 20/34 (58.8%)
  Single vision 2/7 (28.6%) 4/22 (18.2%) 6/34 (17.6%)
  Multifocal 4/7 (57.1%) 2/22 (9.1%) 6/34 (17.6%)
  Bifocals 2/22 (9.1%) 2/34 (5.9%)
Contact lenses 5 (50.0%) 2 (6.7%) 7 (14.0%)
Myopia treatment reported only 1 (10.0%) 3 (10.0%) 4 (8.0%)
Missing data^ 3 (30.0%) 5 (16.7%) 8 (16.0%)
  1. *Multiple answers possible. †Clinicians were not asked to confirm diagnosis of myopia for the round 1 interviews. 1Seven participants data missing. ~ Clinicians reported multiple types of glasses for some participants (specifically two types of glasses for two participants, and three types of glasses for one participant). Additionally, all but four participants reported using glasses during the interviews.
  2. a One participant’s data was removed in this category only as it appeared to have an error.
  3. ^Of note, one participant reported that they only used magnifiers during the interview and no other form of vision correction aid