Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health Through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT): Baseline Methodology for Implementing and Assessing a Community-based Program.

PRECIS: The Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program leverages community-engaged research, telemedicine, and health coaching to overcome key logistical and psychosocial barriers to improve glaucoma screening in underserved communities. PURPOSE: To describe the methodology of the implementation and evaluation of the MI-SIGHT Program. METHODS: The MI-SIGHT Program uses community engagement, telemedicine, and health coaching to overcome key logistical and psychosocial barriers to glaucoma identification and care among underserved populations. The MI-SIGHT Program will be evaluated in 2 community clinics: Hamilton Community Health Network, a federally qualified health center in Flint, Michigan, and the Hope Clinic, a free clinic in Ypsilanti, Michigan. A Community Advisory Board including the research team and health care providers, administrators, and patients from both clinics will guide program implementation. An ophthalmic technician at the community clinics will conduct screening tests for glaucoma and eye disease. The data will be transmitted through electronic health record to be reviewed by an ophthalmologist who will make recommendations for follow-up care. The ophthalmic technician will conduct a return visit to fit low-or no-cost glasses, help arrange follow-up with an ophthalmologist, and provide education. Those diagnosed with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma will be randomized to standard education or personalized glaucoma education and coaching. Costs will be assessed. RESULTS: The authors hypothesize that the MI-SIGHT Program will detect a higher prevalence rate of glaucoma than that found in the general population, improve upon presenting visual acuity, enhance vision-related quality of life, and demonstrate that personalized glaucoma education and coaching improve adherence to follow-up care. CONCLUSION: The MI-SIGHT Program may serve as a model for glaucoma screening and care in high-risk communities.

Prevalence and causes of vision loss in high-income countries and in Eastern and Central Europe in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections.

BACKGROUND: Within a surveillance of the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in high-income regions and Central/Eastern Europe, we update figures through 2015 and forecast expected values in 2020. METHODS: Based on a systematic review of medical literature, prevalence of blindness, moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI), mild vision impairment and presbyopia was estimated for 1990, 2010, 2015, and 2020. RESULTS: Age-standardised prevalence of blindness and MSVI for all ages decreased from 1990 to 2015 from 0.26% (0.10-0.46) to 0.15% (0.06-0.26) and from 1.74% (0.76-2.94) to 1.27% (0.55-2.17), respectively. In 2015, the number of individuals affected by blindness, MSVI and mild vision impairment ranged from 70 000, 630 000 and 610 000, respectively, in Australasia to 980 000, 7.46 million and 7.25 million, respectively, in North America and 1.16 million, 9.61 million and 9.47 million, respectively, in Western Europe. In 2015, cataract was the most common cause for blindness, followed by age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy and cornea-related disorders, with declining burden from cataract and AMD over time. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of MSVI. CONCLUSIONS: While continuing to advance control of cataract and AMD as the leading causes of blindness remains a high priority, overcoming barriers to uptake of refractive error services would address approximately half of the MSVI burden. New data on burden of presbyopia identify this entity as an important public health problem in this population. Additional research on better treatments, better implementation with existing tools and ongoing surveillance of the problem is needed.

Effectiveness of interventions to promote screening for diabetic retinopathy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed to increase retinal screening among people with diabetes. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted of multiple electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2005. Studies were included if interventions were used to promote screening for diabetic retinopathy in any language and with any study design. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies (12 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], four nonrandomized studies, and 32 pre-post studies) with a total of 162,157 participants, examined a wide range of interventions, which focused on one or more of the following: (1) patients or populations, (2) providers or practices, and (3) healthcare system infrastructure and processes. Four of five RCTs focusing on patients demonstrated that interventions increased screening significantly, with relative risk ranging from 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.01-1.08) to 2.01 (95% CI=1.48-2.73). Five RCTs with a focus on the system all demonstrated significant increases in screening with relative risk ranging from 1.12 (95% CI=1.03-1.22) to 5.56 (95% CI=2.19-14.10). Thirty-six non-RCTs, which included interventions with single or multiple foci, also generally demonstrated positive effects. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing patient awareness of diabetic retinopathy, improving provider and practice performance, and improving healthcare system infrastructure and processes, can significantly increase screening for diabetic retinopathy. Further research should explore strategies for increasing the rate of retinal screening among diverse or disadvantaged populations and the economic efficiency of effective interventions in large community populations.