Community screening for visual impairment in the elderly

Community screening for visual impairment in older people

BACKGROUND

Visual problems in older people are common and frequently under-reported. The effects of poor vision in older people are wide reaching and include falls, confusion and reduced quality of life. Much of the visual impairment in older ages can be treated (e.g. cataract surgery, correction of refractive error). Vision screening may therefore reduce the number of older people living with sight loss.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects on vision of community vision screening of older people for visual impairment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 23 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vision screening alone or as part of a multi-component screening package as compared to no vision screening or standard care, on the vision of people aged 65 years or over in a community setting. We included trials that used self-reported visual problems or visual acuity testing as the screening tool.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Visual outcome data were available for 10,608 people in 10 trials. Four trials took place in the UK, two in Australia, two in the United States and two in the Netherlands. Length of follow-up ranged from one to five years. Three of these studies were cluster-randomised trials whereby general practitioners or family physicians were randomly allocated to undertake vision screening or no vision screening. All studies were funded by government agencies. Overall we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias and only downgraded the certainty of the evidence (GRADE) for imprecision.Seven trials compared vision screening as part of a multi-component screening versus no screening. Six of these studies used self-reported vision as both screening tool and outcome measure, but did not directly measure vision. One study used a combination of self-reported vision and visual acuity measurement: participants reporting vision problems at screening were treated by the attending doctor, referred to an eye care specialist or given information about resources that were available to assist with poor vision. There was a similar risk of "not seeing well" at follow-up in people screened compared with people not screened in meta-analysis of six studies (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.14, 4522 participants high-certainty evidence). One trial reported "improvement in vision" and this occurred slightly less frequently in the screened group (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.40, 230 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Two trials compared vision screening (visual acuity testing) alone with no vision screening. In one study, distance visual acuity was similar in the two groups at follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05, 532 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was also little difference in near acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07, 532 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any important difference in quality of life (MD -0.06 National Eye Institute 25-item visual function questionnaire (VFQ-25) score adjusted for baseline VFQ-25 score, 95% CI -2.3 to 1.1, 532 participants, high-certainty evidence). The other study could not be included in the data analysis as the number of participants in each of the arms at follow-up could not be determined. However the authors stated that there was no significant difference in mean visual acuity in participants who had visual acuity assessed at baseline (39 letters) as compared to those who did not have their visual acuity assessed (35 letters, P = 0.25, 121 participants).One trial compared a detailed health assessment including measurement of visual acuity (intervention) with a brief health assessment including one question about vision (standard care). People given the detailed health assessment had a similar risk of visual impairment (visual acuity worse than 6/18 in either eye) at follow-up compared with people given the brief assessment (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.36, 1807 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The mean composite score of the VFQ-25 was 86.0 in the group that underwent visual acuity screening compared with 85.6 in the standard care group, a difference of 0.40 (95% CI -1.70 to 2.50, 1807 participants, high-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from RCTs undertaken to date does not support vision screening for older people living independently in a community setting, whether in isolation or as part of a multi-component screening package. This is true for screening programmes involving questions about visual problems, or direct measurements of visual acuity.The most likely reason for this negative review is that the populations within the trials often did not take up the offered intervention as a result of the vision screening and large proportions of those who did not have vision screening appeared to seek their own intervention. Also, trials that use questions about vision have a lower sensitivity and specificity than formal visual acuity testing. Given the importance of visual impairment among older people, further research into strategies to improve vision of older people is needed. The effectiveness of an optimised primary care-based screening intervention that overcomes possible factors contributing to the observed lack of benefit in trials to date warrants assessment; trials should consider including more dependent participants, rather than those living independently in the community.

Association of Vision Loss With Cognition in Older Adults

Importance

Visual dysfunction and poor cognition are highly prevalent among older adults; however, the relationship is not well defined.

Objective

To evaluate the association of measured and self-reported visual impairment (VI) with cognition in older US adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional analysis of 2 national data sets: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2002, and the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), 2011-2015. The NHANES was composed of a civilian, noninstitutionalized community, and the NHATS comprised Medicare beneficiaries in the contiguous United States. Vision was measured at distance, near, and by self-report in the NHANES and by self-report alone in the NHATS. Sample weights were used to ensure result generalizability.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The NHANES measured Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score and relative DSST impairment (DSST score ≤28, lowest quartile in study cohort), and the NHATS measured probable or possible dementia, classified per NHATS protocol.

Results

The NHANES comprised 2975 respondents aged 60 years and older who completed the DSST measuring cognitive performance. Mean (SD) age was 72 (8) years, 52% of participants were women (n = 1527), and 61% were non-Hispanic white (n = 1818). The NHATS included 30 202 respondents aged 65 years and older with dementia status assessment. The largest proportion (40%; n = 12 212) were between 75 and 84 years of age. Fifty-eight percent were women (n = 17 659), and 69% were non-Hispanic white (n = 20 842). In the NHANES, distance VI (β = -5.1; 95% CI, -8.6 to -1.6; odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-6.7) and subjective VI (β = -5.3; 95% CI, -8.0 to -2.6; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.8) were both associated with lower DSST scores and higher odds of DSST impairment after full adjustment with covariates. Near VI was associated with lower DSST scores but not higher odds of DSST impairment. The NHATS data corroborated these results, with all vision variables associated with higher odds of dementia after full adjustment (distance VI: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.2; near VI: OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1; either distance or near VI: OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8-2.4).

Conclusions and Relevance

In a nationally representative sample of older US adults, vision dysfunction at distance and based on self-reports was associated with poor cognitive function. This was substantiated by a representative sample of US Medicare beneficiaries using self-reported visual function, reinforcing the value of identifying patients with visual compromise. Further study of longitudinal interactions between vision and cognition is warranted.

A Review of Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions Relevant to Orthoptic Practice

AIM

To present an overview of the range of systematic reviews on intervention trials pertinent to orthoptic practice, produced by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group (CEV).

METHODS

We searched the 2016 Cochrane Library database (31.03.2016) to identify completed reviews and protocols of direct relevance to orthoptic practice. These reviews are currently completed and published, available on www.thecochranelibrary.com (free to UK health employees) or via the CEV website (http://eyes.cochrane.org/) .

RESULTS

We found 27 completed CEV reviews across the topics of strabismus, amblyopia, refractive errors, and low vision. Seven completed CEV protocols addressed topics of strabismus, amblyopia, refractive errors, low vision, and screening. We found 3 completed Cochrane Stroke reviews addressing visual field loss, eye movement impairment, and age-related vision loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic review process presents an important opportunity for any clinician to contribute to the establishment of reliable, evidence-based orthoptic practice. Each review has an abstract and plain language summary that many non-clinicians find useful, followed by a full copy of the review (background, objectives, methods, results, discussion) with a conclusion section that is divided into implications for practice and implications for research. The current reviews provide patients/parents/carers with information about various different conditions and treatment options, but also provide clinicians with a summary of the available evidence on interventions, to use as a guide for both clinical practice and future research planning. The reviews identified in this overview highlight the evidence available for effective interventions for strabismus, amblyopia, refractive errors, and low vision or stroke rehabilitation as well as the gaps in the evidence base. Thus, a demand exists for future robust, randomized, controlled trials of such interventions of importance in orthoptic practice.

[Avoidable visual impairment among residents in care institutions: lessons from an intervention project in the Den Bosch region]

INTRODUCTION

Many elderly in care institutions in The Netherlands are visually impaired (visual acuity < 0.3). They fall more frequently, are more depressed and require more care. In this project visually impaired residents were identified and referred for adequate eye care. The aim of this study is to evaluate the intervention, including validation of the screening, assessment of the prevalence and causes of visual impairment as well as the outcome of the treatment. The effectiveness of the care chain is also evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

640 residents were offered a basic eye examination and 210 of them were referred, via their general practitioner, to an optometrist (10), ophthalmologist (98), or centre for visually impaired persons (1).

RESULTS

Compliance in this study was poor. The prevalence of visual impairment (24%) was lower than in comparable studies. Cataract was the main cause in 51%. Overall 17 (8.1%) residents were treated by ophthalmologists and nine (4.3%) were referred to optical shops. Constraints in the care chain are identified.

DISCUSSION

Vision screening in care institutions for elderly is feasible and useful. The care chain should be shorter and simpler. That will increase the effectiveness of this intervention, and thereby the quality of life for many residents.

Health systems analysis of eye care services in Zambia: evaluating progress towards VISION 2020 goals

BACKGROUND

VISION 2020 is a global initiative launched in 1999 to eliminate avoidable blindness by 2020. The objective of this study was to undertake a situation analysis of the Zambian eye health system and assess VISION 2020 process indicators on human resources, equipment and infrastructure.

METHODS

All eye health care providers were surveyed to determine location, financing sources, human resources and equipment. Key informants were interviewed regarding levels of service provision, management and leadership in the sector. Policy papers were reviewed. A health system dynamics framework was used to analyse findings.

RESULTS

During 2011, 74 facilities provided eye care in Zambia; 39% were public, 37% private for-profit and 24% owned by Non-Governmental Organizations. Private facilities were solely located in major cities. A total of 191 people worked in eye care; 18 of these were ophthalmologists and eight cataract surgeons, equivalent to 0.34 and 0.15 per 250,000 population, respectively. VISION 2020 targets for inpatient beds and surgical theatres were met in six out of nine provinces, but human resources and spectacles manufacturing workshops were below target in every province. Inequalities in service provision between urban and rural areas were substantial.

CONCLUSION

Shortage and maldistribution of human resources, lack of routine monitoring and inadequate financing mechanisms are the root causes of underperformance in the Zambian eye health system, which hinder the ability to achieve the VISION 2020 goals. We recommend that all VISION 2020 process indicators are evaluated simultaneously as these are not individually useful for monitoring progress.

GPs' perspectives on preventive care for older people: a focus group study

BACKGROUND

Preventive care traditionally aims to prevent diseases or injuries. For older people, different aims of prevention, such as maintenance of independence and wellbeing, are increasingly important.

AIM

To explore GPs' perspectives on preventive care for older people.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study comprising six focus groups with GPs in the Netherlands.

METHOD

The focus-group discussions with 37 GPs were analysed using the framework analysis method.

RESULTS

Whether or not to implement preventive care for older people depends on the patient's individual level of vitality, as perceived by the GP. For older people with a high level of vitality, GPs confine their role to standardised disease-oriented prevention on a patient's request; when the vitality levels in older people fall, the scope of preventive care shifts from prevention of disease to prevention of functional decline. For older, vulnerable people, GPs expect most benefit from a proactive, individualised approach, enabling them to live as independently as possible. Based on these perspectives, a conceptual model for preventive care was developed, which describes GPs' different perspectives toward older people who are vulnerable and those with high levels of vitality. It focuses on five main dimensions: aim of care (prevention of disease versus prevention of functional decline), concept of care (disease model versus functional model), initiator (older persons themselves versus GP), target groups (people with requests versus specified risk groups), and content of preventive care (mainly cardiovascular risk management versus functional decline).

CONCLUSION

GPs' perspectives on preventive care are determined by their perception of the level of vitality of their older patients. Preventive care for older people with high levels of vitality may consist of a standardised disease-oriented approach; those who are vulnerable will need an individualised approach to prevent functional decline.

Health risk appraisal in older people 6: factors associated with self-reported poor vision and uptake of eye tests in older people

BACKGROUND

Although free eye testing is available in the UK from a nation-wide network of optometrists, there is evidence of unrecognised, tractable vision loss amongst older people. A recent review identified this unmet need as a priority for further investigation, highlighting the need to understand public perceptions of eye services and barriers to service access and utilisation. This paper aims to identify risk factors for (1) having poor vision and (2) not having had an eyesight check among community-dwelling older people without an established ophthalmological diagnosis.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of self-reported data from the ProAge trial. 1792 people without a known ophthalmological diagnosis were recruited from three group practices in London.

RESULTS

Almost two in ten people in this population of older individuals without known ophthalmological diagnoses had self-reported vision loss, and more than a third of them had not had an eye test in the previous twelve months. In this sample, those with limited education, depressed mood, need for help with instrumental and basic activities of daily living (IADLs and BADLs), and subjective memory complaints were at increased risk of fair or poor self-reported vision. Individuals with basic education only were at increased risk for not having had an eye test in the previous 12 months (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.17-1.98 p=0.002), as were those with no, or only one chronic condition (OR 1.850, 95% CI 1.382-2.477, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported poor vision in older people without ophthalmological diagnoses is associated with other functional losses, with no or only one chronic condition, and with depression. This pattern of disorders may be the basis for case finding in general practice. Low educational attainment is an independent determinant of not having had eye tests, as well as a factor associated with undiagnosed vision loss. There are other factors, not identified in this study, which determine uptake of eye testing in those with self-reported vision loss. Further exploration is needed to identify these factors and lead towards effective case finding.

Why is tractable vision loss in older people being missed? Qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is compelling evidence that there is substantial undetected vision loss amongst older people. Early recognition of undetected vision loss and timely referral for treatment might be possible within general practice, but methods of identifying those with unrecognised vision loss and persuading them to take up services that will potentially improve their eyesight and quality of life are not well understood. Population screening does not lead to improved vision in the older population. The aim of this study is to understand why older people with vision loss respond (or not) to their deteriorating eyesight.

METHODS

Focus groups and interviews were carried out with 76 people aged 65 and over from one general practice in London who had taken part in an earlier study of health risk appraisal. An analytic induction approach was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Three polarised themes emerged from the groups and interviews. 1) The capacity of individuals to take decisions and act on them effectively versus a collection of factors which acted as obstacles to older people taking care of their eyesight. 2) The belief that prevention is better than cure versus the view that deteriorating vision is an inevitable part of old age. 3) The incongruence between the professionalism and personalised approach of opticians and the commercialisation of their services.

CONCLUSIONS

The reasons why older people may not seek help for deteriorating vision can be explained in a model in which psychological attributes, costs to the individual and judgments about normal ageing interact. Understanding this model may help clinical decision making and health promotion efforts.

Hospital admissions in older people with visual impairment in Britain

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the risk of hospital admission associated with visual impairment in a representative sample of older people living in the community in Britain.

METHODS

DESIGN

Prospective study of hospital admission in a population-based sample of community dwelling people aged 75 years and above in Britain.

SETTING

53 general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

14,394 participants in the MRC Trial of Assessment and Management of Older people in the Community.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Hospital admission.

RESULTS

Visually impaired older people had 238.7 admissions/1000 person-years compared to 169.7 admissions/1000 person-years in people with good vision: age and sex adjusted rate ratio (RR) 1.32 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.47). Adjusting for a wide range of potential explanatory factors largely eliminated this association: RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.20). However, adjusting for a more limited range of confounding factors, excluding those factors possibly a consequence of reduced vision, left a modest increased risk: RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.34).

CONCLUSION

The association between visual impairment and rate of hospital admission can be attributed to higher levels of co-morbidity and reduced functional ability among people with reduced vision. Visual impairment is likely to be an important contributor to reduced functional ability, but other factors may also be involved.

Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study

BACKGROUND

Most electronic search efforts directed at identifying primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews rely on the optimal Boolean search features of search interfaces such as DIALOG and Ovid. Our objective is to test the ability of an Ultraseek search engine to rank MEDLINE records of the included studies of Cochrane reviews within the top half of all the records retrieved by the Boolean MEDLINE search used by the reviewers.

METHODS

Collections were created using the MEDLINE bibliographic records of included and excluded studies listed in the review and all records retrieved by the MEDLINE search. Records were converted to individual HTML files. Collections of records were indexed and searched through a statistical search engine, Ultraseek, using review-specific search terms. Our data sources, systematic reviews published in the Cochrane library, were included if they reported using at least one phase of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS), provided citations for both included and excluded studies and conducted a meta-analysis using a binary outcome measure. Reviews were selected if they yielded between 1000-6000 records when the MEDLINE search strategy was replicated.

RESULTS

Nine Cochrane reviews were included. Included studies within the Cochrane reviews were found within the first 500 retrieved studies more often than would be expected by chance. Across all reviews, recall of included studies into the top 500 was 0.70. There was no statistically significant difference in ranking when comparing included studies with just the subset of excluded studies listed as excluded in the published review.

CONCLUSION

The relevance ranking provided by the search engine was better than expected by chance and shows promise for the preliminary evaluation of large results from Boolean searches. A statistical search engine does not appear to be able to make fine discriminations concerning the relevance of bibliographic records that have been pre-screened by systematic reviewers.