Glaucoma Care of Prison Inmates at an Academic Hospital | Glaucoma | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Figure.  Actual and Recommended Visits per Year Based on Recommended Follow-up Times
Actual and Recommended Visits per Year Based on Recommended Follow-up Times

The mean total number of visits for each patient was compared with the visit rate based on the follow-up recommendations at each visit. Statistical significance was calculated using paired t tests. Error bars indicate standard deviation.

aP < .001.

bP < .05.

cNot significant compared with actual number of visits.

Table 1.  Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of 82 Participants Based on the First Visit in the Study Period
Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of 82 Participants Based on the First Visit in the Study Period
Table 2.  Glaucoma Disease Profilea
Glaucoma Disease Profilea
Table 3.  Glaucoma Medical and Surgical Treatment Characteristics
Glaucoma Medical and Surgical Treatment Characteristics
Table 4.  Patient Medication Adherence Metricsa
Patient Medication Adherence Metricsa
1.
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. World prison brief. http://www.prisonstudies.org. Accessed January 9, 2020.
2.
Kuhn  A.  Incarceration rates: Europe versus USA.   Eur J Crim Pol Res. 1996;4(3):46-73. doi:10.1007/BF02750729 Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Wilper  AP, Woolhandler  S, Boyd  JW,  et al.  The health and health care of US prisoners: results of a nationwide survey.   Am J Public Health. 2009;99(4):666-672. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.144279 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Binswanger  IA, Stern  MF, Deyo  RA,  et al.  Release from prison—a high risk of death for former inmates.   N Engl J Med. 2007;356(2):157-165. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa064115 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Loeb  SJ, Abudagga  A.  Health-related research on older inmates: an integrative review.   Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(6):556-565. doi:10.1002/nur.20177 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Binswanger  IA, Krueger  PM, Steiner  JF.  Prevalence of chronic medical conditions among jail and prison inmates in the USA compared with the general population.   J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(11):912-919. doi:10.1136/jech.2009.090662 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Freudenberg  N.  Jails, prisons, and the health of urban populations: a review of the impact of the correctional system on community health.   J Urban Health. 2001;78(2):214-235. doi:10.1093/jurban/78.2.214 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Reingle Gonzalez  JM, Connell  NM.  Mental health of prisoners: identifying barriers to mental health treatment and medication continuity.   Am J Public Health. 2014;104(12):2328-2333. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302043 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Drug use, dependence, and abuse among state prisoners and jail inmates, 2007-2009. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5966. Published June 27, 2017. Accessed May 24, 2018.
10.
World Health Organization: Europe. Declaration on prison health as part of public health. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/98971/E94242.pdf. Published October 24, 2003. Accessed May 26, 2019.
11.
US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: education and correctional populations. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf. Revised April 15, 2003. Accessed January 9, 2020.
12.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. NCJRS Abstract No. 246381. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=268468. Published April 2014. Accessed May 24, 2018.
13.
Segal  AG, Frasso  R, Sisti  DA.  County jail or psychiatric hospital? ethical challenges in correctional mental health care.   Qual Health Res. 2018;28(6):963-976. doi:10.1177/1049732318762370 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Rich  JD, Beckwith  CG, Macmadu  A,  et al.  Clinical care of incarcerated people with HIV, viral hepatitis, or tuberculosis.   Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1103-1114. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30379-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Valera  P, Chang  Y, Lian  Z.  HIV risk inside U.S. prisons: a systematic review of risk reduction interventions conducted in U.S. prisons.   AIDS Care. 2017;29(8):943-952. doi:10.1080/09540121.2016.1271102 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Gough  E, Kempf  MC, Graham  L,  et al.  HIV and hepatitis B and C incidence rates in US correctional populations and high risk groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   BMC Public Health. 2010;10:777. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-777 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Okeke  CO, Quigley  HA, Jampel  HD,  et al.  Adherence with topical glaucoma medication monitored electronically: the Travatan Dosing Aid study.   Ophthalmology. 2009;116(2):191-199. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Olthoff  CMG, Schouten  JSAG, van de Borne  BW, Webers  CAB.  Noncompliance with ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: an evidence-based review.   Ophthalmology. 2005;112(6):953-961. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.12.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Schwartz  GF, Quigley  HA.  Adherence and persistence with glaucoma therapy.   Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53(suppl 1):S57-S68. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.08.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Sleath  B, Blalock  SJ, Covert  D, Skinner  AC, Muir  KW, Robin  AL.  Patient race, reported problems in using glaucoma medications, and adherence.   ISRN Ophthalmol. 2012;2012:902819. doi:10.5402/2012/902819 PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Newman-Casey  PA, Blachley  T, Lee  PP, Heisler  M, Farris  KB, Stein  JD.  Patterns of glaucoma medication adherence over four years of follow-up.   Ophthalmology. 2015;122(10):2010-2021. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.039 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.   JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Illinois.gov. Illinois Department of Corrections. https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc. Accessed January 1, 2019.
24.
Prum  BE  Jr, Rosenberg  LF, Gedde  SJ,  et al.  Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern(®) guidelines.   Ophthalmology. 2016;123(1):41-P111. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.053 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Illinois.gov. Illinois Department of Corrections. Correctional facilities: correctional facilities, visitation rules & information. https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/facilities/Pages/correctionalfacilities.aspx. Accessed July 16, 2019.
26.
Illinois.gov. Illinois Department of Corrections. Prison population data sets: reports & statistics. https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Pages/Prison-Population-Data-Sets.aspx. Accessed July 16, 2019.
27.
Al Obeidan  SA, Dewedar  A, Osman  EA, Mousa  A.  The profile of glaucoma in a tertiary ophthalmic university center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.   Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2011;25(4):373-379. doi:10.1016/j.sjopt.2011.09.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Yadava  U, Dewan  T, Krishna  V, Das  JC.  Traumatic glaucoma profile in an urban referral center.   Ann Ophthalmol. 2002;34(2):118-122. doi:10.1007/s12009-002-0039-z Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Ludwig  A, Cohen  L, Parsons  A, Venters  H.  Injury surveillance in New York City jails.   Am J Public Health. 2012;102(6):1108-1111. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300306 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Golembeski  C, Fullilove  R.  Criminal (in)justice in the city and its associated health consequences.   Am J Public Health. 2005;95(10):1701-1706. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.063768 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Nicosia  N, Macdonald  JM, Arkes  J.  Disparities in criminal court referrals to drug treatment and prison for minority men.   Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):e77-e84. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301222 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Martin  MJ, Sommer  A, Gold  EB, Diamond  EL.  Race and primary open-angle glaucoma.   Am J Ophthalmol. 1985;99(4):383-387. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(85)90001-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Lochner  L, Moretti  E.  The effect of education on crime: evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports.   Am Econ Rev. 2004;94(1):155-189. doi:10.1257/000282804322970751 Google ScholarCrossref
34.
Henry  KL, Knight  KE, Thornberry  TP.  School disengagement as a predictor of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood.   J Youth Adolesc. 2012;41(2):156-166. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Sukumar  S, Spencer  F, Fenerty  C, Harper  R, Henson  D.  The influence of socioeconomic and clinical factors upon the presenting visual field status of patients with glaucoma.   Eye (Lond). 2009;23(5):1038-1044. doi:10.1038/eye.2008.245 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Fraser  S, Bunce  C, Wormald  R, Brunner  E.  Deprivation and late presentation of glaucoma: case-control study.   BMJ. 2001;322(7287):639-643. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7287.639 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Fraser  S, Bunce  C, Wormald  R.  Risk factors for late presentation in chronic glaucoma.   Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40(10):2251-2257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Desai  MA, Gedde  SJ, Feuer  WJ, Shi  W, Chen  PP, Parrish  RK  II.  Practice preferences for glaucoma surgery: a survey of the American Glaucoma Society in 2008.   Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2011;42(3):202-208. doi:10.3928/15428877-20110224-94 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Ramulu  PY, Corcoran  KJ, Corcoran  SL, Robin  AL.  Utilization of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in Medicare beneficiaries from 1995 to 2004.   Ophthalmology. 2007;114(12):2265-2270. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.02.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Gedde  SJ, Schiffman  JC, Feuer  WJ, Herndon  LW, Brandt  JD, Budenz  DL; Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group.  Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5):789-803.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.026 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Kosoko  O, Quigley  HA, Vitale  S, Enger  C, Kerrigan  L, Tielsch  JM.  Risk factors for noncompliance with glaucoma follow-up visits in a residents’ eye clinic.   Ophthalmology. 1998;105(11):2105-2111. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(98)91134-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Soto Blanco  JM, Pérez  IR, March  JC.  Adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected prison inmates (Spain).   Int J STD AIDS. 2005;16(2):133-138. doi:10.1258/0956462053057503 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Gray  R, Bressington  D, Lathlean  J, Mills  A.  Relationship between adherence, symptoms, treatment attitudes, satisfaction, and side effects in prisoners taking antipsychotic medication.   J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2008;19(3):335-351. doi:10.1080/14789940802113493 Google ScholarCrossref
44.
Baillargeon  J, Linton  AD, Black  SA, Zepeda  S, Grady  JJ.  Medication prescribing and adherence patterns among prison inmates with diabetes mellitus.   J Correct Health Care. 2001;8(1):37-53. doi:10.1177/107834580100800103 Google ScholarCrossref
45.
Cuthbertson  L, Kowalewski  K, Edge  J, Courtney  K.  Factors that promote and hinder medication adherence from the perspective of inmates in a provincial remand center: a mixed methods study.   J Correct Health Care. 2018;24(1):21-34. doi:10.1177/1078345817745613 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Ung  C, Murakami  Y, Zhang  E,  et al.  The association between compliance with recommended follow-up and glaucomatous disease severity in a county hospital population.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(2):362-369. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.03.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Newman-Casey  PA, Niziol  LM, Mackenzie  CK,  et al.  Personalized behavior change program for glaucoma patients with poor adherence: a pilot interventional cohort study with a pre-post design.   Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018;4:128. doi:10.1186/s40814-018-0320-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Trestman  RL, Appelbaum  KL, Metzner  JL,  et al.  Oxford Textbook of Correctional Psychiatry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2015. doi:10.1093/med/9780199360574.001.0001
49.
Mills  A, Lathlean  J, Bressington  D, Forrester  A, Veenhuyzen  WV, Gray  R.  Prisoners’ experiences of antipsychotic medication: influences on adherence.   J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2011;22(1):110-125. doi:10.1080/14789949.2010.509804 Google ScholarCrossref
50.
Roberson  DW, White  BL, Fogel  CI.  Factors influencing adherence to antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected female inmates.   J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2009;20(1):50-61. doi:10.1016/j.jana.2008.05.008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Cohen Castel  O, Keinan-Boker  L, Geyer  O, Milman  U, Karkabi  K.  Factors associated with adherence to glaucoma pharmacotherapy in the primary care setting.   Fam Pract. 2014;31(4):453-461. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmu031 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Stirratt  MJ, Dunbar-Jacob  J, Crane  HM,  et al.  Self-report measures of medication adherence behavior: recommendations on optimal use.   Transl Behav Med. 2015;5(4):470-482. doi:10.1007/s13142-015-0315-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Chauhan  BC, Garway-Heath  DF, Goñi  FJ,  et al.  Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma.   Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(4):569-573. doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.135012 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 805
    Citations 0
    Original Investigation
    February 20, 2020

    Glaucoma Care of Prison Inmates at an Academic Hospital

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago
    • 2King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138(4):358-364. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.0001
    Key Points

    Question  What is the glaucoma profile of prison inmates referred to an academic center, and how is the treatment of those patients managed?

    Findings  In this cohort study of 82 prison inmates, suspected and primary open-angle glaucoma were the most common diagnoses, with advanced disease present in 53.2% of patients with confirmed glaucoma. Most patients self-reported medication nonadherence, and follow-up visits often were delayed, with approximately one-quarter of visits during the recommended time frame and one-third delayed by more than 1 month.

    Meaning  These findings suggest that glaucoma management of prison inmates requires careful consideration of barriers to care, and close communication with the referring facility may be advised.

    Abstract

    Importance  Glaucoma care for prison inmates is underrepresented in the literature even though managing the treatment of such patients may provide unique challenges.

    Objectives  To evaluate the glaucoma profile of prison inmates treated at an academic ophthalmology center and to report on the medical and surgical management and follow-up metrics.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This retrospective cohort study assessed data from 82 incarcerated patients treated at the glaucoma clinic, an academic referral center at the University of Illinois at Chicago, between January 2013 and December 2017.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Diagnosis, glaucoma severity, medical and surgical interventions, and patient-reported medication adherence were recorded for each visit. Recommended and actual follow-up times were recorded and compared. Data analyses were conducted from January 2013 to December 2018.

    Results  In total, 82 patients (161 eyes) had 375 visits during the study period. All patients were male and ranged from 20 to 75 years of age (mean [SD] age, 50.8 [11.9] years). Most participants were black patients (65 [79.3%]). The most common diagnoses were primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG; 53 eyes [32.9%]) and POAG suspect (52 eyes [32.3%]). Glaucoma severity ranged from mild (25 of 77 eyes [32.5%]) to advanced (41 of 77 eyes [53.2%]). Overall, 59 patients (73.2%) were treated medically with up to 4 topical agents (40.0%). Of those treated, 70.0% of patients (95% CI, 57.7%-81.2%) reported medication nonadherence during at least 1 visit. Medication nonadherence was more common among those taking 4 different topical medications (21 of 24 [87.5%]) compared with others taking fewer medications (20 of 35 [57.1%]), for a difference of 30.4% (95% CI, 7.0%-53.6%; P = .02), and among those with advanced disease (22 of 26 [84.6%]) compared with glaucoma suspect (6 of 13 [46.2%]), for a difference of 38.4% (95% CI, 9.3%-67.5%; P = .02). Nineteen office procedures, including laser peripheral iridotomy and laser trabeculoplasty, were performed on 14 eyes. Seventeen incisional glaucoma procedures were performed on 15 eyes, including glaucoma drainage device implant (11 procedures [64.7%]) and trabeculectomy (3 procedures [17.6%]). Only 26.6% of return office visits (95% CI, 21.3%-32.3%) occurred within the recommended follow-up time frame. Furthermore, 93 patients (34.8%; 95% CI, 28.2%-40.0%) were seen more than 1 month after the recommended follow-up.

    Conclusions and Relevance  Despite incarceration in prison, where medication administration and appointment attendance are theoretically controlled, the results of this study suggested that substantial medication and follow-up nonadherence exists among inmates.

    Introduction

    The medical care of incarcerated patients is an important and growing problem. In the United States, the total imprisoned population and the per capita imprisonment rates are the highest worldwide,1 with substantial increases during the last several decades.2 However, medical care in this population is lacking.3-5 Chronic conditions, such as cancer, infectious disease, and cardiovascular disease, tend to be overrepresented in the prison inmate population.6,7 In addition, the high prevalence of psychiatric conditions,8 the high rate of illicit drug use,9 and the low socioeconomic and educational status10,11 among prison inmates present challenges to the provision of high-quality medical care.

    In many cases, a correctional facility may employ health care workers or a contracted health care service to provide basic medical care for inmates. For specialized care, patients may be referred to outside medical facilities in academic centers. Although such arrangements provide access to specialty clinicians, they also produce several barriers. For example, for security purposes, prison inmates are not told of follow-up recommendations or arrangements. Instead, the physician-patient relationship is bypassed, and a third party—a prison official—ultimately controls follow-up scheduling. This setup adds a layer of complexity to medical practice and may increase the potential for errors in communication. Specific barriers to care have been discussed in the context of medical care for psychiatric conditions8,12,13 and infectious disease,14-16 but there is a paucity of literature on this subject in fields such as ophthalmology or surgical subspecialties. Given the highly specialized nature of ophthalmologic examinations and surgical management, barriers may have profound consequences.

    The importance of medication and follow-up adherence in the management of glaucoma is well established,17-21 but, to our knowledge, the treatment of incarcerated patients with glaucoma has not yet been studied. In the context of the potential challenges of ophthalmologic care in an imprisoned population, understanding the patient population and current treatment management is important to guide clinicians as well as to inform improvements in the system. The purpose of the present study was to identify the glaucoma disease and treatment profile of incarcerated patients referred to an academic ophthalmology center for glaucoma management.

    Methods

    This was a retrospective, noncomparative cohort study of incarcerated patients seen at the University of Illinois at Chicago glaucoma clinic from January 2013 to December 2017. The study followed the research agreement put forth by the Illinois Department of Corrections and received approval from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Illinois at Chicago, which waived the requirement for patient informed consent for this retrospective, noninterventional study because there was minimal risk to study participants. No one received compensation or was offered any incentive for participating in this study. The research was conducted according to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki22 and in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

    On entry, inmates in local Illinois Department of Corrections facilities or federal prisons undergo screening eye examinations, which include Snellen distance visual acuity testing. Those with abnormal screening results or those with self-expressed ocular concerns are evaluated by an optometrist, who may refer the patient for evaluation at the University of Illinois at Chicago if deemed to require ophthalmologist evaluation. Follow-up recommendations are communicated to and scheduled by prison officials. Patients who miss a follow-up appointment are rescheduled by prison officials. When treated, medications belonging to inmates may be secured and administered by the facility or may be kept in possession of the inmate for self-administration at the discretion of prison officials.

    Data from all visits from all prison inmates at the glaucoma clinic during the study period are included in the present study. For each patient, initial presentation to the glaucoma clinic was recorded regardless of whether this appointment occurred during the study period. After the study end date, follow-up was reviewed until December 2018 to assess the follow-up interval for the final study visit.

    Initial visits were reviewed for demographic information and medical and ocular history. Custody date was obtained for each patient through publicly accessible resources23 to determine time from incarceration to initial clinic visits. A primary glaucoma diagnosis was determined on the basis of physical examination and ancillary testing results. Glaucoma staging was based on the American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern.24 Each visit within the study period was reviewed for physical examination, treatment, and ancillary testing information. Patients were asked about medication adherence at each visit, and a patient was considered adherent if he had reported consistent use of therapy up to at most 1 week prior to a scheduled visit.

    Follow-up recommendations generally followed current preferred practice patterns24 for standard follow-up visits. The actual follow-up rate was compared with a calculated recommended follow-up rate. For example, if a patient was seen twice during 2 years but the recommended follow-up after the first visit was 3 months, the actual follow-up rate would be 1 visit per year, whereas the recommended follow-up rate would be 4 visits per year. Loss to follow-up was defined as at least 1 year lapsing between the latest follow-up and the end of the study.

    Statistical analyses included the performance of the t test, 1-way analysis of variance, the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, the Fisher exact test, or the χ2 test, as appropriate. Data were confirmed to be normal in distribution prior to use of parametric tests. A 2-sided value of P < .05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical tests were conducted using R, version 3.5.3 (R Core Team) from January 2013 to December 2018.

    Results

    Eighty-two prison inmates (161 eyes) had 375 visits in the glaucoma clinic during the study. Sixty-five new patients were seen during the study, whereas the remaining 17 patients were already established in the clinic prior to the start of the study. Although the institution provides care for female inmates, all patients meeting inclusion criteria were male. Ages ranged from 20 to 75 years old (mean [SD], 50.8 [11.9] years). A majority (65) were black patients (79.3%). Eight patients (9.8%) were legally blind (visual acuity of 20/200 or worse in the better-seeing eye). Most patients had a diagnosis of glaucoma prior to their initial visit and had already received medical (53 patients) or surgical (8 patients) glaucoma therapy (Table 1).

    Prison inmates came from 9 different Illinois Department of Corrections facilities and local federal prisons. The current cumulative inmate population of the referring facilities from this study was approximately 12 200 inmates,25 and the facilities were located between 8 and 371 km from the University of Illinois at Chicago. The current prison inmate population in the state of Illinois is approximately 39 300.26

    Prison inmates were first seen in an ophthalmology clinic at a mean (SD) of 11.39 (8.85) years (range, 4 months to 37 years) following admission into custody. Most patients (48 [58.5%]) were referred directly to the glaucoma clinic. The remaining patients were initially seen in another ophthalmology clinic—most commonly the general eye clinic (24 patients [70.6%])—prior to being referred to the glaucoma clinic. There was a mean (SD) of 3.23 (4.45) years (range, 1 month to 21 years) between initial general eye clinic visit and initial glaucoma visit. The time difference between incarceration and initial ophthalmology visit was not associated with disease severity (mean [SD] years: advanced, 10.4 [9.5]; moderate, 15.7 [13.6]; and mild: 8.0 [7.9]; P = .42).

    The most common glaucoma diagnoses were primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) (53 eyes [32.9%]), POAG suspect (52 eyes [32.3%]), and traumatic glaucoma (10 eyes [6.2%]) (Table 2). Approximately half of those with confirmed glaucoma (77 eyes excluding indeterminate and suspect) had advanced disease (41 eyes [53.2%]), whereas 25 eyes (32.5%) had mild disease.

    Of the 138 eyes with glaucoma, 105 (76.1%) were treated medically during the study period, including with oral medications or up to 4 topical medications (42 of 105 eyes [40.7%]) (Table 3). Nineteen office procedures were performed on 14 eyes (9 patients), and 15 eyes (12 patients) underwent 17 incisional interventions, including glaucoma drainage device implant (11 procedures [64.7%]) and trabeculectomy (3 procedures [17.6%]). Patients undergoing incisional glaucoma surgery were older than those undergoing other office procedures (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.5] vs 49.9 [9.9] years; P = .04), and 16 patients with advanced disease (38.4%) underwent incisional glaucoma surgery. Complications included 1 trabeculectomy bleb leak and 1 corneal incision wound leak.

    Ancillary testing included optical coherence tomography for 31 patients (37.8%) and visual field testing for 68 patients (82.9%). However, only 5 patients had more than 1 optical coherence tomography examination during the study period. Similarly, although 19 patients had multiple visual field tests, only 2 patients had more than 3 examinations. The paucity of testing results over time precluded analysis of progression based on these metrics.

    From the first visit within the study period to the end of the study period, patients attended a mean (SD) of 1.75 (1.73) visits per year. The number of visits was correlated with disease severity, and those with advanced (mean [SD], 2.33 [1.57] visits per year) or moderate (mean [SD], 2.32 [2.12] visits per year) disease were seen more frequently than those with mild (mean [SD], 1.95 [1.84] visits per year) or suspect (mean [SD], 1.02 [1.20] visits per year) disease severity (P = .01). However, these visit rates were less than expected based on recommended follow-up times. Those with advanced disease had a mean (SD) recommended follow-up time of 51.34 (44.28) days compared with 80.31 (46.45) days for moderate disease, 105.13 (51.77) days for mild disease, and 171.02 (107.46) days for glaucoma suspect (P < .001). There was a significant difference between the recommended and actual visit rates among those with mild or advanced disease and among those with glaucoma suspect (Figure).

    There was a significant difference between recommended and actual follow-up times throughout the 5-year study period. Fewer than one-third (71 of 267 visits[26.6%]) of all visits occurred within the recommended time frame (95% CI, 21.3%-32.3%), whereas fewer than half of all visits were scheduled (by the prison system) to within 1 week of the recommended follow-up time (126 visits [47.2%]), and more than one-third of visits occurred more than 1 month after the recommended follow-up time (93 visits [34.8%]; 95% CI, 28.2%-40.0%). Initial postoperative visits (first visit following an incisional procedure) occurred at a mean (SD) of 1.4 (1.2) postoperative days. The second postoperative visit (typically recommended for 1 week after surgery) occurred a mean (SD) of 26.5 (59.4) days later. Only 37.5% of second postoperative visits took place within the recommended time frame. In 1 case, the second postoperative visit was delayed by more than 1 month; in 1 case, it was delayed nearly 1 year; and 1 case, it was lost to follow-up after the first postoperative visit.

    In total, 70.0% (95% CI, 57.7%-81.2%) of patients reported not taking their glaucoma medications during at least 1 visit in the study period. When all clinic visits were evaluated individually, patients reported medication nonadherence at more than one-quarter of visits (Table 4). Patients taking 4 different topical medications had significantly higher self-reported nonadherence rates than those taking fewer topical medications (21of 24 [87.5%] vs 20 of 35 [57.1%]), for a difference of 30.4% (95% CI, 7.0%-53.6%; P = .02). Similarly, self-reported nonadherence was more common among those with advanced disease compared with those with glaucoma suspect (22 of 26 [84.6%] vs 6 of 13 [46.2%]), for a difference of 38.4% (95% CI, 9.3%-67.5%; P = .02). There was no significant mean (SD) age difference between patients who were medication adherent (53.0 [10.6] years) and nonadherent patients (48.4 [15.1] years; P = .19). Race/ethnicity (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% CI, 0.78-17.5; P = .18), history of trauma (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.37-4.0; P = .77), and psychiatric history (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.19-3.9; P = .99) were not associated with differences in self-reported nonadherence (Table 4).

    Ultimately, 50 patients (61.0%) were lost to follow-up (defined as a lapse of more than 1 year between the last visit and the end of the study period). It is not known whether these patients established care elsewhere or were released from prison.

    Discussion

    Chronic diseases are common among prison inmates, and medical care is often lacking,3 but the characteristics of ophthalmic conditions, including glaucoma, are understudied. Our study is the first, to our knowledge, to characterize the glaucoma profile observed in a prison inmate population evaluated at an academic center. The referring facilities included a large population of state and federal prisons covering a large geographic area and serving a substantial proportion of the Illinois inmate population; therefore, the studied population may function as a reasonable representative sampling of male prison inmates.

    Mirroring the general population in some ways, POAG and POAG suspect were the most common glaucoma conditions encountered. However, trauma and secondary traumatic glaucoma—including angle-recession glaucoma—were seen more frequently than is reported in the general population,27,28 perhaps reflecting the relatively higher level of violent behavior encountered among prison inmates compared with the general population.29-31 The glaucoma profile of the inmates in our study was skewed toward the advanced stages compared with nonincarcerated patients.32 This finding may be associated with delayed glaucoma presentation; prison inmates are more likely to come from lower socioeconomic and educational backgrounds compared with general population,33,34 and these factors are associated with the presence and delayed presentation of glaucoma.35-37 More advanced disease may also have been associated with referral bias. Some cases of glaucoma may be managed by the optometrist employed within the prison, and the present study population may generally represent more severe cases. Similarly, some patients with glaucoma were referred and their treatment managed by the general eye clinic of our institution. Those patients initially treated by the general eye clinic but later requiring glaucoma surgery were referred internally to the glaucoma clinic, which may also have increased selection bias.

    In most cases, the time between the incarceration date and the initial visit to the ophthalmology clinic was several years. The screening eye examination on entry to prison is minimal and includes Snellen visual acuity; therefore, most referrals occur when patients are symptomatic. Given that visual acuity testing tends to be given later in the disease course of glaucoma, this practice has the potential to delay detection. However, we did not observe an association between disease severity and time to presentation after incarceration. It may be beneficial to expand the screening examination on admission to a correctional facility.

    The most commonly performed surgical intervention was glaucoma drainage implant, with relatively few trabeculectomy procedures. This distribution aligns with current common practices38,39 and is generally associated with a higher success rate and a lower rate of complications with tube surgery than with trabeculectomy.40

    This study found relatively high rates of medication nonadherence19 and loss to follow-up41 compared with those reported for the general population. Comparison with prison inmate studies from some specialties, including psychiatry, infectious disease, and endocrinology, is problematic owing to the variable-defined metrics of medication and follow-up adherence, but estimates for nonadherence range from below 30% to upward of 70%.42-45 Nonadherence in the general population is multifactorial and is associated with such factors as poor education, long waiting times, and travel distance to the clinic.46 Some of these factors should be controlled for the institutionalized patient given that medications are scheduled and transportation to office visits are provided. However, psychosocial factors, such as competence and perceived benefits,21,47 may still be associated with adherence among prison inmates who self-administer medication. In addition, inmate-specific risk factors for nonadherence may include logistical and communication issues. For example, for security purposes, follow-up information is not shared with the prison inmate at each visit. Instead, the physician fills out a form indicating a recommended follow-up time that is then processed at the correctional facility. Establishing follow-up visits while the patient is still in the clinic may help resolve some of these issues. Our study did not distinguish between medication nonadherence that was volitional (ie, patient refusing to take medications) and medication nonadherence that was nonvolitional (eg, the prison failed to provide the medication). However, refusal of medication is a common problem among prison inmates,48 and it is plausible that this issue could account for some of the nonadherence found in our study. In prisons, medications may be either provided to the patient for self-administration or directly administered by the prison staff. There is debate as to whether self-administration improves adherence rates,43,49,50 and further study of this question in the context of glaucoma is warranted. Polypharmacy may play a role in medication adherence because patients in the present study were found to have worse adherence when using 4 topical medications compared with those taking fewer medications. Other studies have also shown a higher number of medications as a barrier to medication adherence.51 However, although our study found higher medication nonadherence rates among those with advanced disease, the causality is not known; those with advanced disease may be more nonadherent because of polypharmacy, or patients may have advanced disease as a result of being nonadherent.

    Our study found that follow-up nonadherence was mostly associated with suspected glaucoma and with advanced disease. Individuals with suspected glaucoma in the general population also demonstrate poor follow-up adherence, perhaps because of a lower perception of the seriousness of the disease.41 Advanced glaucoma is associated with poor follow-up adherence in the general population.46 This association may occur because poor adherence results in worsening disease, or it may be that those with advanced disease tend to be less able or willing to follow up at the recommended intervals. In the present patient population, the association may be logistical because those with advanced disease require more frequent visits, which may be more difficult for the prison staff to arrange. This issue was highlighted by postoperative visits; although the first follow-up visit after incisional surgery, scheduled prior to surgery, typically occurred within a reasonable time frame, the second visit was sometimes delayed by weeks or months. The sample size of surgical patients was insufficient to assess whether follow-up delay led to increased complication rates. Given potential issues with scheduling delays, patients may benefit from having the first several postoperative follow-up visits scheduled at the time of surgical scheduling rather than sequentially at each follow-up visit, as is the current practice.

    Limitations

    In addition to the aforementioned selection bias, there were several other limitations to our study. Although many patients were lost to follow-up, medical management following final visits was unknown. Given the known issues with general transition of medical care after release from prison,4 further study into this issue is necessary. Assessment of medication adherence was subjective and dependent on self-report by the prison inmate, which may tend to overestimate true adherence.52 Because this study was retrospective, certain potentially useful information was not available, such as patient-reported reasons for medication nonadherence. Perhaps as a result of poor follow-up adherence, there was insufficient ancillary testing (visual field testing and optical coherence tomography) to perform progression analysis based on current recommendations.53 The sample size limited our analysis of surgical outcomes. Finally, our study included only the state of Illinois, and the results may not be generalizable to other states.

    Conclusions

    Given the results of this study, we recommend that more care be taken not only in educating the incarcerated patient with glaucoma but also in ensuring clear communication with the prison staff regarding the recommended treatment management and follow-up for inmates. We encourage the prison system to work to reduce logistical barriers to specialty medical follow-up. The ophthalmologist should be prepared to seek direct communication with the correctional facility staff in cases in which timely treatment management is important, such as postoperatively.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: December 23, 2019.

    Corresponding Author: Levi N. Kanu, MD, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1855 W Taylor St, Ste 1.145 (MC 648), Chicago, IL 60612 (levi.kanu@gmail.com).

    Published Online: February 20, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.0001

    Author Contributions: Dr Kanu had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Kanu, Oh, Mehta, Dikopf, Aref, Edward.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Kanu, Jang, Oh, Tiwana, Dikopf, Vajaranant, Aref, Edward.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Kanu, Jang, Oh, Tiwana.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Kanu, Tiwana, Mehta, Dikopf, Vajaranant, Aref, Edward.

    Statistical analysis: Kanu, Tiwana, Edward.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Oh, Dikopf, Aref, Edward.

    Supervision: Mehta, Dikopf, Vajaranant, Aref, Edward.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Aref reported personal fees from Aerie Pharmaceuticals and from New World Medical outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: General salary support was provided by the Core Grant for Vision Research P30 EY001792 from the National Eye Institute.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The National Eye Institute had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    References
    1.
    Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. World prison brief. http://www.prisonstudies.org. Accessed January 9, 2020.
    2.
    Kuhn  A.  Incarceration rates: Europe versus USA.   Eur J Crim Pol Res. 1996;4(3):46-73. doi:10.1007/BF02750729 Google ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Wilper  AP, Woolhandler  S, Boyd  JW,  et al.  The health and health care of US prisoners: results of a nationwide survey.   Am J Public Health. 2009;99(4):666-672. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.144279 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Binswanger  IA, Stern  MF, Deyo  RA,  et al.  Release from prison—a high risk of death for former inmates.   N Engl J Med. 2007;356(2):157-165. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa064115 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Loeb  SJ, Abudagga  A.  Health-related research on older inmates: an integrative review.   Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(6):556-565. doi:10.1002/nur.20177 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Binswanger  IA, Krueger  PM, Steiner  JF.  Prevalence of chronic medical conditions among jail and prison inmates in the USA compared with the general population.   J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(11):912-919. doi:10.1136/jech.2009.090662 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Freudenberg  N.  Jails, prisons, and the health of urban populations: a review of the impact of the correctional system on community health.   J Urban Health. 2001;78(2):214-235. doi:10.1093/jurban/78.2.214 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Reingle Gonzalez  JM, Connell  NM.  Mental health of prisoners: identifying barriers to mental health treatment and medication continuity.   Am J Public Health. 2014;104(12):2328-2333. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302043 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Bureau of Justice Statistics. Drug use, dependence, and abuse among state prisoners and jail inmates, 2007-2009. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5966. Published June 27, 2017. Accessed May 24, 2018.
    10.
    World Health Organization: Europe. Declaration on prison health as part of public health. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/98971/E94242.pdf. Published October 24, 2003. Accessed May 26, 2019.
    11.
    US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: education and correctional populations. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf. Revised April 15, 2003. Accessed January 9, 2020.
    12.
    National Criminal Justice Reference Service. NCJRS Abstract No. 246381. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=268468. Published April 2014. Accessed May 24, 2018.
    13.
    Segal  AG, Frasso  R, Sisti  DA.  County jail or psychiatric hospital? ethical challenges in correctional mental health care.   Qual Health Res. 2018;28(6):963-976. doi:10.1177/1049732318762370 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Rich  JD, Beckwith  CG, Macmadu  A,  et al.  Clinical care of incarcerated people with HIV, viral hepatitis, or tuberculosis.   Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1103-1114. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30379-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Valera  P, Chang  Y, Lian  Z.  HIV risk inside U.S. prisons: a systematic review of risk reduction interventions conducted in U.S. prisons.   AIDS Care. 2017;29(8):943-952. doi:10.1080/09540121.2016.1271102 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Gough  E, Kempf  MC, Graham  L,  et al.  HIV and hepatitis B and C incidence rates in US correctional populations and high risk groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   BMC Public Health. 2010;10:777. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-777 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Okeke  CO, Quigley  HA, Jampel  HD,  et al.  Adherence with topical glaucoma medication monitored electronically: the Travatan Dosing Aid study.   Ophthalmology. 2009;116(2):191-199. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Olthoff  CMG, Schouten  JSAG, van de Borne  BW, Webers  CAB.  Noncompliance with ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: an evidence-based review.   Ophthalmology. 2005;112(6):953-961. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.12.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Schwartz  GF, Quigley  HA.  Adherence and persistence with glaucoma therapy.   Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53(suppl 1):S57-S68. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.08.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Sleath  B, Blalock  SJ, Covert  D, Skinner  AC, Muir  KW, Robin  AL.  Patient race, reported problems in using glaucoma medications, and adherence.   ISRN Ophthalmol. 2012;2012:902819. doi:10.5402/2012/902819 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    21.
    Newman-Casey  PA, Blachley  T, Lee  PP, Heisler  M, Farris  KB, Stein  JD.  Patterns of glaucoma medication adherence over four years of follow-up.   Ophthalmology. 2015;122(10):2010-2021. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.039 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.   JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Illinois.gov. Illinois Department of Corrections. https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc. Accessed January 1, 2019.
    24.
    Prum  BE  Jr, Rosenberg  LF, Gedde  SJ,  et al.  Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern(®) guidelines.   Ophthalmology. 2016;123(1):41-P111. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.053 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Illinois.gov. Illinois Department of Corrections. Correctional facilities: correctional facilities, visitation rules & information. https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/facilities/Pages/correctionalfacilities.aspx. Accessed July 16, 2019.
    26.
    Illinois.gov. Illinois Department of Corrections. Prison population data sets: reports & statistics. https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Pages/Prison-Population-Data-Sets.aspx. Accessed July 16, 2019.
    27.
    Al Obeidan  SA, Dewedar  A, Osman  EA, Mousa  A.  The profile of glaucoma in a tertiary ophthalmic university center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.   Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2011;25(4):373-379. doi:10.1016/j.sjopt.2011.09.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Yadava  U, Dewan  T, Krishna  V, Das  JC.  Traumatic glaucoma profile in an urban referral center.   Ann Ophthalmol. 2002;34(2):118-122. doi:10.1007/s12009-002-0039-z Google ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Ludwig  A, Cohen  L, Parsons  A, Venters  H.  Injury surveillance in New York City jails.   Am J Public Health. 2012;102(6):1108-1111. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300306 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Golembeski  C, Fullilove  R.  Criminal (in)justice in the city and its associated health consequences.   Am J Public Health. 2005;95(10):1701-1706. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.063768 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Nicosia  N, Macdonald  JM, Arkes  J.  Disparities in criminal court referrals to drug treatment and prison for minority men.   Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):e77-e84. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301222 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Martin  MJ, Sommer  A, Gold  EB, Diamond  EL.  Race and primary open-angle glaucoma.   Am J Ophthalmol. 1985;99(4):383-387. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(85)90001-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Lochner  L, Moretti  E.  The effect of education on crime: evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports.   Am Econ Rev. 2004;94(1):155-189. doi:10.1257/000282804322970751 Google ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Henry  KL, Knight  KE, Thornberry  TP.  School disengagement as a predictor of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood.   J Youth Adolesc. 2012;41(2):156-166. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Sukumar  S, Spencer  F, Fenerty  C, Harper  R, Henson  D.  The influence of socioeconomic and clinical factors upon the presenting visual field status of patients with glaucoma.   Eye (Lond). 2009;23(5):1038-1044. doi:10.1038/eye.2008.245 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Fraser  S, Bunce  C, Wormald  R, Brunner  E.  Deprivation and late presentation of glaucoma: case-control study.   BMJ. 2001;322(7287):639-643. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7287.639 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Fraser  S, Bunce  C, Wormald  R.  Risk factors for late presentation in chronic glaucoma.   Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40(10):2251-2257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    38.
    Desai  MA, Gedde  SJ, Feuer  WJ, Shi  W, Chen  PP, Parrish  RK  II.  Practice preferences for glaucoma surgery: a survey of the American Glaucoma Society in 2008.   Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2011;42(3):202-208. doi:10.3928/15428877-20110224-94 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Ramulu  PY, Corcoran  KJ, Corcoran  SL, Robin  AL.  Utilization of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in Medicare beneficiaries from 1995 to 2004.   Ophthalmology. 2007;114(12):2265-2270. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.02.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Gedde  SJ, Schiffman  JC, Feuer  WJ, Herndon  LW, Brandt  JD, Budenz  DL; Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group.  Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5):789-803.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.026 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Kosoko  O, Quigley  HA, Vitale  S, Enger  C, Kerrigan  L, Tielsch  JM.  Risk factors for noncompliance with glaucoma follow-up visits in a residents’ eye clinic.   Ophthalmology. 1998;105(11):2105-2111. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(98)91134-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Soto Blanco  JM, Pérez  IR, March  JC.  Adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected prison inmates (Spain).   Int J STD AIDS. 2005;16(2):133-138. doi:10.1258/0956462053057503 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Gray  R, Bressington  D, Lathlean  J, Mills  A.  Relationship between adherence, symptoms, treatment attitudes, satisfaction, and side effects in prisoners taking antipsychotic medication.   J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2008;19(3):335-351. doi:10.1080/14789940802113493 Google ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Baillargeon  J, Linton  AD, Black  SA, Zepeda  S, Grady  JJ.  Medication prescribing and adherence patterns among prison inmates with diabetes mellitus.   J Correct Health Care. 2001;8(1):37-53. doi:10.1177/107834580100800103 Google ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Cuthbertson  L, Kowalewski  K, Edge  J, Courtney  K.  Factors that promote and hinder medication adherence from the perspective of inmates in a provincial remand center: a mixed methods study.   J Correct Health Care. 2018;24(1):21-34. doi:10.1177/1078345817745613 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Ung  C, Murakami  Y, Zhang  E,  et al.  The association between compliance with recommended follow-up and glaucomatous disease severity in a county hospital population.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(2):362-369. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.03.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Newman-Casey  PA, Niziol  LM, Mackenzie  CK,  et al.  Personalized behavior change program for glaucoma patients with poor adherence: a pilot interventional cohort study with a pre-post design.   Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018;4:128. doi:10.1186/s40814-018-0320-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Trestman  RL, Appelbaum  KL, Metzner  JL,  et al.  Oxford Textbook of Correctional Psychiatry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2015. doi:10.1093/med/9780199360574.001.0001
    49.
    Mills  A, Lathlean  J, Bressington  D, Forrester  A, Veenhuyzen  WV, Gray  R.  Prisoners’ experiences of antipsychotic medication: influences on adherence.   J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2011;22(1):110-125. doi:10.1080/14789949.2010.509804 Google ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Roberson  DW, White  BL, Fogel  CI.  Factors influencing adherence to antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected female inmates.   J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2009;20(1):50-61. doi:10.1016/j.jana.2008.05.008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Cohen Castel  O, Keinan-Boker  L, Geyer  O, Milman  U, Karkabi  K.  Factors associated with adherence to glaucoma pharmacotherapy in the primary care setting.   Fam Pract. 2014;31(4):453-461. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmu031 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Stirratt  MJ, Dunbar-Jacob  J, Crane  HM,  et al.  Self-report measures of medication adherence behavior: recommendations on optimal use.   Transl Behav Med. 2015;5(4):470-482. doi:10.1007/s13142-015-0315-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Chauhan  BC, Garway-Heath  DF, Goñi  FJ,  et al.  Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma.   Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(4):569-573. doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.135012 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×