Quantitative pediatric vision screening in primary care settings in Alabama.

PURPOSE: Alabama Medicaid reimburses "objective" vision screening (VS), i.e., by acuity or similar quantitative method, and well child checks (WCCs) separately. We analyzed the frequency of each service obtained. METHODS: Claims for WCC and VS provided between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2003 for children aged 3 to 18 years, and summary data for all enrolled children, were obtained from Alabama Medicaid. We used univariate analysis followed by logistic regression to explore the potential influence of factors (patient age, provider type, and provider's volume of WCCs) on the receipt of VS at pre-school ages. RESULTS: Children receiving WCCs were 55% black, 40% white, and 5% other. Percentages of children with WCC claims were highest at 4 years (57%) and thereafter declined to 30% at 6 to 14 years and to <10% at 18 years. Nearly all VS (>98% at each age) occurred the same day as the WCC. Pediatricians provided 68% of all WCCs. Multivariate analysis, after adjusting for nesting of pre-school patients within provider, showed the odds ratios (ORs) of VS were increased by patient age (5 years vs. 3 years, OR = 3.57, p < 0.0001), nonphysician provider type (nonphysician vs. pediatrician, OR = 1.80, p = 0.0004) and high WCC volume (at or above vs. below the median number (n = 8) of WCC per provider per year (OR = 7.11, p < 0.0001)). Because VS rates were high when attendance to WCC visits was low, few enrolled children received VS at any age (6% at the age of 3, 13% at the age of 4, and a maximum of 20% at the age of 5). CONCLUSIONS: National efforts to reduce preventable vision loss from amblyopia are hampered because children are not available for screening and because providers miss many opportunities to screen vision at pre-school age. Efforts to improve VS should target pediatrician-led practices, because these serve greater numbers of children.

Economic evaluation of different methods of screening for amblyopia in kindergarten.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 5 methods of screening for untreated amblyopia in kindergarten from a third-party-payer perspective: A) uncorrected monocular visual acuity testing with pass threshold > or =0.5 (20/40) and < or =1 line difference between eyes; B) same as A, but pass threshold > or =0.6 (20/32); C) same as A, plus cover tests and examination of eye motility and head posture; D) same as C, but pass threshold > or =0.6 (20/32); and E) refractive screening without cycloplegia using the Nikon Retinomax autorefractor. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used with a time horizon until diagnostic examination. According to the model, all 3-year-old children were screened in kindergarten with 1 of the screening methods. Children with positive screening results were referred to an ophthalmologist for diagnostic examination. Children with inconclusive screening results were either referred to an ophthalmologist directly (option 1) or rescreened by the same method after 1 year and referred to an ophthalmologist if rescreening was positive or inconclusive (option 2). Screening test characteristics and costs were estimated on the basis of a field study in which 1180 3-year-old children were examined by orthoptists in 121 German kindergartens. RESULTS: Compared with methods A option 1 (A-1), B-1, C-1, C-2, E-1, and E-2, there was at least 1 other method that was both less costly and more effective. The average costs per detected case were lowest for method A-2 (878 Euro), followed by methods B-2 (886 Euro), D-2 (908 Euro), and D-1 (965 Euro). When these methods were compared with each other, the additional costs per extra case detected were 1058 Euro (B-2 vs A-2), 1359 Euro (D-2 vs B-2), and 13 448 Euro (D-1 vs D-2). CONCLUSIONS: Monocular visual acuity screening with rescreening of inconclusive results had a favorable cost-effectiveness. By adding additional test items, few more cases could be detected. Because of a great proportion of false-negative, false-positive, and inconclusive results, refractive screening was less effective with an unfavorable cost-effectiveness.

[Model for cost-benefit relations of amblyopia screening]. / Modell für das Nutzen-Kosten-Verhältnis des Amblyopie-Screenings.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In Germany, 750,000 children are born per year who should be screened for developmental visual defects in the age range 24-48 months. However, the established pediatric screening program is not sufficient to prevent amblyopia. The purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of alternatives for amblyopia and microtropia screening. METHODS: Three options were compared: (1) an orthoptic screening carried out in the field, for instance in kindergartens, (2) an examiner-independent objective apparatus-based screening, and (3) a complete ophthalmological and strabismological examination carried out in a practice. The costs of screening, follow-up examinations and of the treatment were modelled for prevalences of 1% (microtropia) and 5% (amblyopia). The benefit due to treatment was calculated as the result of an avoided whole-person impairment of 3% and 1%. The income related, increased tax and health care payments were used to cover the costs. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In options (1) and (2) there were favorable cost-effective ratios. The practice-based option 3 was economically less promising. The higher the prevalence was, the higher the resulting cost-effectiveness.

Assessment of an inner city visual screening programme for preschool children.

AIMS: The efficiency of preschool visual screening programmes to detect amblyopia is questionable. In this study such a programme in an inner city was assessed to determine its effectiveness. METHODS: The results of screening and hospital treatment of 712 patients who were considered to require referral were entered into a database for analysis. Default rates were assessed and the efficacy of treatment determined. RESULTS: The only effective screening test for the detection of amblyopia was visual acuity. A large proportion of referred patients had refractive problems only. High default rates, particularly in geographical areas of lower socioeconomic grading, severely handicapped any attempt to reduce the incidence of amblyopia. CONCLUSION: A fresh approach to the detection and care of amblyopia in the inner city community is required, perhaps by performing screening of children in their first year of attendance at school to reduce default rates. Cycloplegic refraction of children who are found to have reduced visual acuity before their referral to hospital is also recommended.

Costs and methods of preventive visual screening and the relation between esotropia and increasing hypermetropia.

Atkinson has shown that early correction of hypermetropia reduces the incidence of esotropia. If esotropia is reduced by prescribing glasses early, the rate of esotropia-induced amblyopia can be similarly reduced; this would have important economic consequences. We have studied (1) how costs compare to benefits in early visual screening, (2) how videorefraction as used by Atkinson compares to retinoscopy, and (3) whether esotropia is more likely to occur in children who have increasing as opposed to decreasing hypermetropia. The costs of the study so far have been high. It was exceedingly difficult to get all infants invited, come to the clinic and examined. Videorefraction did not compare favourably with retinoscopy in terms of costs and precision, whereas the amount of skill and time needed was approximately equal. The third question, whether esotropia is more likely to occur in children who have increasing as opposed to decreasing hypermetropia, arose from the controversy whether, in the general population, refraction increases or decreases during the first years of life. We found that papers reporting a decrease of hypermetropia in early childhood were studies of large cross-sections of the general population, whereas papers that reported an initial increase originated from ophthalmological practices or strabismus departments. These conflicting results could be reconciled by assuming a population bias: if esotropia is more likely to occur in children with increasing hypermetropia, children with increasing hypermetropia will preferentially be seen by ophthalmologists. It seems natural that children with increasing hypermetropia are more likely to squint, because additional accommodation, needed to overcome increasing hypermetropia, will inevitably confer additional convergence. This relationship has meanwhile been confirmed by others.

Vision screening in preschool children: comparison of orthoptists and clinical medical officers as primary screeners.

OBJECTIVE: To see if there were differences in referral rates and abnormalities detected from two areas that were operating different preschool vision screening programmes. DESIGN: Cohort study using case notes of referrals. SETTING: Community based secondary referral centres in the county of Avon. PATIENTS: 263 referrals from a child population of 7105 in Southmead district, an area that used orthoptists as primary vision screeners; 111 referrals from a child population of 2977 in Weston-super-Mare, an area that used clinical medical officers for screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Amblyopia and squint detection rates, together with false positive referral rates. RESULTS: The amblyopia detection rate in Southmead district was significantly higher than in Weston-super-Mare (11/1000 children v 5/1000), as was the detection rate of squint (11/1000 v 3/1000). However, the false positive referral rate from Southmead was significantly lower than that from Weston-super-Mare (9/1000 v 23/1000). CONCLUSION: Preschool vision screening using orthoptists as primary screeners offers a more effective method of detecting visual abnormalities than using clinical medical officers.

Assessment of intraocular lens implantation in children.

Visual rehabilitation by conventional aphakic spectacles and contact lenses has posed a serious problem in the pediatric population. While the use of intraocular lenses has not achieved widespread acceptance as a form of aphakic correction, we have obtained encouraging results in some of our patients. In this report, we discuss two categories: those patients with congenital cataracts, and those patients with traumatic cataracts.

Refractive amblyopia: a preventable vision condition.

There are very few visual conditions which can be greatly reduced or prevented. One exception to this statement is amblyopia, particularly refractive amblyopia. The methods and concepts for prevention are discussed and guidelines are proposed for the management of those pediatric patients "at risk" to develop refractive amblyopia or secondary strabismus.