You are here

Vision

Expand All National Snapshots

Vision screening, preschool children, 2002 and 2008

Increase Desired

SOURCE: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), CDC/NCHS.

NOTES: Data are for the proportion of preschool children aged 5 years and under who had ever received vision screening. Respondents were asked to select one or more races. The single-race categories include persons who reported only one racial group. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Confidence Interval= 95% confidence interval.

The proportion of preschool children aged 5 years and under whose parents reported that their child had ever received vision screening increased 10.2% between 2002 and 2008, from 36.4% to 40.1%, and varied by race and ethnicity; however, these differences were not statistically significant. For example, in 2008, 41.3% of non-Hispanic white preschool children had received vision screening, compared with 40.6% of non-Hispanic black, 37.7% of Hispanic or Latino, and 32.0% of Asian preschool children.

Revised: Thursday, March 28, 2013

Blindness and visual impairment, children and adolescents, 2000–2012

Decrease Desired

SOURCE: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), CDC/NCHS.

NOTE: Data are for children and adolescents aged 17 years and under who had trouble seeing even when wearing glasses or contact lenses.

The proportion of children aged 17 years and under who had trouble seeing even when wearing glasses or contact lenses increased 48.4% between 2000 and 2012, from 19.0 to 28.2 per 1,000.

Revised: Monday, August 25, 2014

Blindness and visual impairment, children and adolescents, 2012

Decrease Desired

SOURCE: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), CDC/NCHS.

NOTES: Data are for children and adolescents aged 17 years and under who had trouble seeing even when wearing glasses or contact lenses. Respondents were asked to select one or more races. The single-race categories include persons who reported only one racial group. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

PT = Poverty Threshold. confidence interval = 95% confidence interval.

In 2012, 28.2 per 1,000 children aged 17 years and under had trouble seeing even when wearing glasses or contact lenses. Rates varied by sex, race and ethnicity, family income, and activity limitation status:

  • 29.3 per 1,000 female children aged 17 years and under had trouble seeing even when wearing glasses or contact lenses, compared with 27.0 per 1,000 male children aged 17 years and under, although this difference was not statistically significant.

  • 38.1 per 1,000 non-Hispanic black children aged 17 years and under had trouble seeing even when wearing glasses or contact lenses, more than one and half times the rate for non-Hispanic white children aged 17 years and under, 24.4 per 1,000.

  • 37.7 per 1,000 children aged 17 years and under whose family incomes were below the Poverty Threshold (PT) had trouble seeing even when wearing glasses or contact lenses, almost two and a half times the rate for those at 400–599% of the PT, 15.5 per 1,000. 

  • 73.8 per 1,000 children aged 17 years and under with activity limitations had trouble seeing even when wearing glasses or contact lenses, more than three times the rate for those without activity limitations, 23.4 per 1,000. 

Revised: Monday, August 25, 2014

Comprehensive eye exam in past 2 years, adults, 2008

Increase Desired

SOURCE: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), CDC/NCHS.
NOTES: Data are for the proportion of adults aged 18 and over who had a comprehensive eye examination, including dilation, within the past 2 years, and are age adjusted using the year 2000 standard population. Respondents were asked to select one or more races. The single-race categories include persons who reported only one racial group. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Data by education are for persons aged 25 and over. Data by health insurance status are for persons aged 18–64.

Confidence Interval = 95% confidence interval.

In 2008, 55% (age adjusted) of adults aged 18 and over had had a comprehensive dilated eye examination within the past 2 years. This rate varied by sex, race and ethnicity, education, and health insurance status. For example:

  • 58.9% (age adjusted) of male adults had had a comprehensive dilated eye examination within the past 2 years, compared with 51% of female adults.

  • 56.5% (age adjusted) of non-Hispanic white adults had had a comprehensive dilated eye examination within the past 2 years, compared with 48.1% of Hispanic or Latino adults.

  • 66.5% (age adjusted) of adults aged 25 and over with an advanced degree had had a comprehensive dilated eye examination within the past 2 years, compared with 43.3% of those with less than a high school education.

  • 55.0% (age adjusted) of adults aged 18–64 with health insurance had had a comprehensive dilated eye examination within the past 2 years, compared with 32.5% of those without health insurance.

Revised: Thursday, March 28, 2013

Visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive errors, 2005–08

Decrease Desired

SOURCE: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), CDC/NCHS.
NOTES: Data are for persons aged 12 years and over with visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive errors, and are age adjusted using the year 2000 standard population. Respondents were asked to select one or more races. The categories `white, non-Hispanic’ and `black, non-Hispanic’ include persons who reported only one race. Persons of Mexican-American origin may be of any race.
FPL = Federal Poverty Level.
Confidence Interval = 95% confidence interval.

In 2005–08, 136.1 per 1,000 persons aged 12 years and over (age adjusted) experienced visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive errors. This rate varied by race and ethnicity, family income, and diabetes status:

  • 119.4 per 1,000 non-Hispanic white persons aged 12 years and over (age adjusted) experienced visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive errors, compared with 164.8 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic black and 179.7 per 1,000 among Mexican American persons aged 12 and over.

  • The rate of visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive errors decreased as family incomes increased, from 170.8 per 1,000 (age adjusted) among persons aged 12 years and over whose family incomes were below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to 105.9 per 1,000 among those at or above 500% of the FPL.

  • 184.6 per 1,000 persons aged 12 years and over with diabetes (age adjusted) experienced visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive errors, compared with 134.4 per 1,000 among those without diabetes.

Revised: Thursday, March 28, 2013

National Snapshots Help

HEALTHY PEOPLE 2020 NATIONAL SNAPSHOTS

A User's Guide

  1. National snapshots provide a visual display of progress for selected objectives in each Healthy People 2020 Topic Area, whenever data are available.

  2. The snapshot heading describes the snapshot theme, the population to which the snapshot applies (when needed for clarification), and the data year(s). The snapshot heading is not meant to capture the full scientific scope of the objective(s) that is (are) displayed. The user can find complete technical information about the objective(s) in the Data Details.

  3. The snapshot visual display is generally one of three types: a line graph, a bar chart, or a map. 

  4. The snapshot notes and footnotes indicate any technical information about the data that the user needs to correctly interpret the visual display, together with any key data limitations (when applicable). Although the snapshots are intended to be standalone, the user should consult the objective(s) Data Details for the full range of methodology issues that may impact interpretation.

  5. The snapshot source(s) indicate the data source(s) used to create the visual display.

  6. Age-adjusted data are adjusted using the year 2000 standard population.

  7. Education and income are the primary measures of socioeconomic status in Healthy People 2020. Unless otherwise noted, income is defined as a family’s income before taxes; thus, the terms “income” and “family income” are used interchangeably in the snapshots.

  8. To facilitate comparisons among groups and over time, while adjusting for family size and for inflation, Healthy People 2020 categorizes family income using the Poverty Threshold (PT), sometimes also referred to as the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), developed by the Census Bureau. Unless otherwise overridden by considerations specific to the data system, the five categories of family income primarily used are: 

    1. Below the PT (i.e., less than 100% of the PT) 

    2. At 100%–199% of the PT 

    3. At 200%–399% of the PT 

    4. At 400%–599% of the PT 

    5. At or above 600% of the PT.

  9. A snapshot narrative paragraph highlights some key features of the visual display. The narrative text is not meant to provide an exhaustive analysis of the data displayed. For a more in-depth analysis, the user should refer to the applicable data table(s) and objective(s) Data Details.

  10. The user should keep in mind the following: 

    1. When two rates or proportions are highlighted for comparison (and measures of variability are available), the user may interpret the highlighted difference to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level, unless otherwise stated.

    2. Only selected differences are highlighted in the narrative text. Differences visible in the visual data display but not highlighted in the text still may well be statistically significant.

Revised: Monday, August 25, 2014