The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: A microsimulation study

Ethnicity and refractive errors in Peruvian children aged 7-11 years: A five-year analysis of the Demographic and Health Survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between ethnicity and self-reported refractive errors (REs) among Peruvian children aged 7-11 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study incorporating a secondary data analysis of 2017-2021 data from the Peruvian Demographic and Health Survey (DHS). REs and ethnicity were obtained from focal child's mother's report. Four outcomes were assessed: hyperopia, myopia, astigmatism and any RE. We included potential confounders, such as age, sex, wealth index, area of residence, region of origin, frequency of watching TV and watching screens at less than 30 cm distance. Generalised linear models with the Poisson family and log link function were used to calculate crude prevalence ratio and adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Data from a total of 52,753 children were included. The prevalence of RE in children aged 7-11 years was 10.90% (95% CI 10.49-11.33), of which 5.19% were hyperopia, 3.35% myopia and 2.36% astigmatism. Those of the Aymara ethnicity were less likely to suffer from any RE and astigmatism (aPR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-0.99, p = 0.046; aPR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.92, p = 0.012, respectively), Members of Amazon groups were more likely to have hyperopia (aPR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.14-3.36, p = 0.015) and Quechuas were more likely to have myopia (aPR =1.29, 95% CI 1.02-1.62, p = 0.028), where all were compared to Mestizos.

CONCLUSION

About 1 in 10 Peruvian children suffer from a RE. The most frequent RE in this study was hyperopia. Ethnic differences were seen in the frequency of RE.

A population-level post-screening treatment cost framework to help inform vision screening choices for children under the age of seven

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Visual acuity (VA) screening in children primarily detects low VA and amblyopia between 3 and 6 years of age. Photoscreening is a low-cost, lower-expertise alternative which can be carried out on younger children and looks instead for refractive amblyopia risk factors so that early glasses may prevent or mitigate the conditions. The long-term benefits and costs of providing many children with glasses in an attempt to avoid development of amblyopia for some of them needs clarification. This paper presents a framework for modeling potential post-referral costs of different screening models once referred children reach specialist services.

METHODS

The EUSCREEN Screening Cost-Effectiveness Model was used together with published literature to estimate referral rates and case mix of referrals from different screening modalities (photoscreening and VA screening at 2, 3-4 years and 4-5 years). UK 2019-20 published National Health Service (NHS) costings were used across all scenarios to model the comparative post-referral costs to the point of discharge from specialist services. Potential costs were compared between a) orthoptist, b) state funded ophthalmologist and c) private ophthalmologist care.

RESULTS

Earlier VA screening and photoscreening yield higher numbers of referrals because of lower sensitivity and specificity for disease, and a different case mix, compared to later VA screening. Photoscreening referrals are a mixture of reduced VA caused by amblyopia and refractive error, and children with amblyopia risk factors, most of which are treated with glasses. Costs relate mainly to the secondary care providers and the number of visits per child. Treatment by an ophthalmologist of a referral at 2 years of age can be more than x10 more expensive than an orthoptist service receiving referrals at 5 years, but outcomes can still be good from referrals aged 5.

CONCLUSIONS

All children should be screened for amblyopia and low vision before the age of 6. Very early detection of amblyopia refractive risk factors may prevent or mitigate amblyopia for some affected children, but population-level outcomes from a single high-quality VA screening at 4-5 years can also be very good. Total patient-journey costs incurred by earlier detection and treatment are much higher than if screening is carried out later because younger children need more professional input before discharge, so early screening is less cost-effective in the long term. Population coverage, local healthcare models, local case-mix, public health awareness, training, data monitoring and audit are critical factors to consider when planning, evaluating, or changing any screening programme.

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes

OBJECTIVE

For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe.

METHODS

The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017-2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire.

RESULTS

The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.