A survey of eyecare affordability among patients seen in collaborative care in Australia and factors contributing to cost barriers.

AIM: The decline in the real value of rebates from Australia's national public health insurance scheme, Medicare, over the past decade has contributed to increased out-of-pocket costs for eyecare services, which threatens affordability. This study measured eyecare affordability and cost barriers among patients seen in collaborative care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 252 patients who had attended a collaborative eyecare clinic in the previous year. A modified affordability subscale was used to measure eyecare and general healthcare affordability. Two population scores were calculated: the average percentage of patients experiencing cost barriers (mean of the five item percentages for general healthcare, and optometric and specialist eyecare), and the proportion indicating one or more cost barriers. Factors associated with eyecare and general healthcare affordability were identified using linear regression. RESULTS: The response rate was 46.8% (n = 118/252). The mean percentage of patients not obtaining services because of cost ranged from 23.4% (standard deviation [SD] 8.8) for general healthcare to 25.5% (SD 6.3) for specialist eyecare. Direct or indirect cost barriers to one or more services were experienced by 45.2% (n = 52/115) of respondents for optometric eyecare and 40.4% (n = 44/109) for specialist eyecare. Services not covered by private health insurance or Medicare (for example, out-of-pocket dental and optical) were ranked the most difficult to afford. Poorer self-rated health (p = 0.004, ß = 0.293) and the lack of private hospital health insurance (p = 0.014, ß= 0.249) were associated with reduced optometric eyecare affordability. This was also true for specialist eyecare affordability (self-rated health p = 0.002, ß = 0.306; private hospital health insurance p = 0.004, ß = 0.286). A lack of private hospital health insurance (p = 0.001, ß = 0.312), younger age (p < 0.001, ß = -0.418) and holding a concession card (p = 0.011, ß = 0.272) were all associated with reduced affordability of general healthcare. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of patients seen in collaborative care experience cost barriers to accessing eyecare, particularly for services not covered by private health insurance or Medicare. These findings indicate that affordability concerns exist despite significant reductions in the direct cost of services within a collaborative care setting. They also provide insights on the subpopulations most vulnerable to rising eyecare costs.

Assessment of patient education materials for age-related macular degeneration.

PURPOSE: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision loss. It is helpful for patients living with AMD to understand the prognosis, risk factors and management of their condition. Online education materials are a popular and promising channel for conveying this knowledge to patients with AMD. However, the quality of these materials-particularly with respect to qualities such as 'understandability' and 'actionability'-is not yet known. This study assessed a collection of online materials about AMD based on these qualities of 'understandability' and 'actionability'. METHODS: Online education materials about AMD were sourced through Google from six English-speaking nations: Australia, New Zealand, USA, UK, Ireland and Canada. Three Australian/New Zealand trained and registered optometrists participated in the grading of the 'understandability' and 'actionability' of online education materials using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). RESULTS: This study analysed a total of 75 online materials. The mean 'understandability' score was 74% (range: 38%-94%). The 'understandability' PEMAT criterion U11 (calling for a summary of the key points) scored most poorly across all materials. The mean 'actionability' score was 49% (range: 0%-83%). The 'actionability' PEMAT criterion A26 (using 'visual aids' to make instructions easier to act on) scored most poorly across all materials. CONCLUSION: Most education materials about AMD are easy to understand, but difficult to act on, because of a lack of meaningful visual aids. We propose future enhancements to AMD education materials-including the use of summaries, visual aids and a habit tracker-to help patients with AMD improve their understanding of disease prognosis, risk factors and eye assessment schedule requirements.

Topical Review: Assessment of Binocular Sensory Processes in Low Vision.

SIGNIFICANCE: This article summarizes the evidence for a higher prevalence of binocular vision dysfunctions in individuals with vision impairment. Assessment for and identification of binocular vision dysfunctions can detect individuals experiencing difficulties in activities including reading, object placement tasks, and mobility.Comprehensive vision assessment in low vision populations is necessary to identify the extent of remaining vision and to enable directed rehabilitation efforts. In patients with vision impairment, little attention is typically paid to assessments of binocular vision, including ocular vergence, stereopsis, and binocular summation characteristics. In addition, binocular measurements of threshold automated visual fields are not routinely performed in clinical practice, leading to an incomplete understanding of individuals' binocular visual field and may affect rehabilitation outcomes.First, this review summarizes the prevalence of dysfunctions in ocular vergence, stereopsis, and binocular summation characteristics across a variety of ocular pathologies causing vision impairment. Second, this review examines the links between clinical measurements of binocular visual functions and outcome measures including quality of life and performance in functional tasks. There is an increased prevalence of dysfunctions in ocular alignment, stereopsis, and binocular summation across low vision cohorts compared with those with normal vision. The identification of binocular vision dysfunctions during routine low vision assessments is especially important in patients experiencing difficulties in activities of daily living, including but not limited to reading, object placement tasks, and mobility. However, further research is required to determine whether addressing the identified deficits in binocular vision in low vision rehabilitative efforts directly impacts patient outcomes.

Evaluation of a hospital-based integrated model of eye care for diabetic retinopathy assessment: a multimethod study.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetic eye disease is a leading cause of blindness but can be mitigated by regular eye assessment. A framework of issues, developed from the literature of barriers to eye assessment, was used to structure an examination of perceptions of a new model of care for diabetic retinopathy from the perspective of staff using the model, and health professionals referring patients to the new service. DESIGN: Multimethod: interviews and focus groups, and a separate survey. SETTING: A new clinic based on an integrated model of care was established at a hospital in outer metropolitan Sydney, Australia in 2017. Funded jointly by Centre for Eye Health (CFEH) and the hospital, the clinic was equipped and staffed by optometrists who work alongside the ophthalmologists in the existing hospital eye clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Five (of seven) hospital staff working in the clinic (ophthalmologists and administrative officers) or referring to it from other departments (endocrinologists); nine optometrists from CFEH who developed or worked in the clinic; 10 community-based optometrists as potential referrers. RESULTS: The new clinic was considered to have addressed known barriers to eye assessment, including access, assistance for patients unable/unwilling to organise eye checks and efficient management of human resources. The clinic optimised known drivers of this model of care: providing clear scope of practice and protocols for shared care between optometrists and ophthalmologists, good communication between referrers and eye professionals and a collegial approach promoting interprofessional trust. Remaining areas of concern were few referrals from general practitioners, fewer referrals from hospital endocrinologists than expected and issues with stretched administrative capacity. There were also perceived mismatches between the priorities of hospital management and aims of the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The new model was considered to have addressed many of the barriers to assessment. While there remain issues with the model, there were also unexpected benefits.

A holistic model of low vision care for improving vision-related quality of life.

Vision impairment can have a significant impact on the wellbeing and quality of life of an individual. Vision rehabilitation has the potential to improve these areas; however, four in five patients with vision impairment are not being referred to the appropriate services. Barriers to on-referral include, but are not limited to: (1) misunderstandings by both practitioners and patients alike regarding which individuals with vision impairment might benefit or qualify for low vision services; (2) lack of awareness of available services; (3) unfamiliarity with practice guidelines; (4) miscommunication between practitioners and patients; (5) required patient travel or limitations in access; and (6) the perceived costs of goods and services. Further, current referral patterns do not represent a holistic patient-centric approach. Vision-related quality of life questionnaires are tools which can assist health professionals in providing optimal individualised care. This review explores current evidence regarding low vision service delivery within Australia and globally, the impact of vision impairment on activities of daily living, the instruments used for the assessment of vision-related quality of life (VRQOL), competing priorities of individual needs in low vision services and rehabilitation, and provides recommendations for a more patient-centred model of care.