Costs and effects of conventional vision screening and photoscreening in the Dutch preventive child health care system

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.

Photoscreening for amblyopia risk factors assessment in young children: A systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Amblyopia is a leading cause of preventable and treatable vision loss in the pediatric population. Instrument-based screening of amblyopia-risk factors is being widely adopted but the audit of its results is still lacking. We sought to review the existing evidence regarding the outcomes of photoscreening applied to children under the age of three years.

METHODS

A three-database search (Pubmed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus) was performed from inception to March 2021. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to summarize the referral rate, untestable rate and positive predictive value (PPV).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were selected among 705 original abstracts. The quantitative analysis included twelve studies enrolling 64,041 children. Of these, 13% (95%CI: 7-19%) were referred for further confirmation of the screening result. Astigmatism was the most common diagnosis both after screening and after ophthalmologic assessment of referred children. The pooled untestable rate and PPV were 8% (95%CI: 3-15%) and 56% (95%CI: 40-71%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is no global consensus on the optimal age, frequency or what magnitude of refractive error must be considered an amblyopia-risk factor. Optimization of referral criteria is therefore warranted.

Costs and effectiveness of two models of school-entry visual acuity screening in the UK

Cost effectiveness of different visual screening modalities cannot be calculated without long-term outcome data. This paper reports detailed outcomes from a gold-standard UK recommended orthoptist-delivered screening (ODS) at 4-5 years in school, compared to a neighboring school-nurse delivered screening (SNDS), both feeding into the same treatment pathway. The target condition was reduced visual acuity (VA) of worse than logMAR 0.2 in either eye.Available records from screening databases and hospital records were analyzed, comparing the two services wherever possible.More screening data was available from the ODS. ODS: 5706 screened, 3.5% referred. False positives 6.5%, PPV 91.4%, sensitivity 97.9%, and specificity 99.8% for reduced VA. Cost per child with reduced vision detected £195.22, and per amblyope detected £683.28. The mean treatment cost per child with reduced VA was £331.68 and for amblyopia treatment was £458.65.SNDS: 5630 screened and 3.8% referred (plus some referrals to local optometrists lost to follow up). False positives 34%, PPV 53.2%, sensitivity and specificity estimated as 89.3% and 98.67%. Costs to secondary services of false positives were seven times greater. The cost per child with confirmed reduced vision seen at the hospital was 46% more; and per amblyope detected was 39% more.Outcomes for treatment post referral in both groups were similar and excellent. 86% of genuine referrals improved to within normal limits with glasses alone. Of 221 genuine referrals with final outcome data, all now have better than 0.2logMAR acuity in the better eye and only two (0.9%) have residual amblyopia in one eye worse than 0.4logMAR.About 14-18% of children with reduced VA would have passed AAPOS photoscreening referral criteria.An orthoptist-delivered single VA screen at 4-5 years is highly cost effective with good outcomes. The main contributing factors to success appear to be training and experience in accurate VA testing, the opportunity to rescreen equivocal results, and monitoring, audit, and feedback of outcomes.