Guide de pratique clinique fondé sur des données probantes pour l'examen périodique de la vue chez les enfants de 0 à 5 ans au Canada.

CONTEXTE: Étant donné que les maladies oculaires avant l'âge de 5 ans sont courantes, une certaine forme de dépistage des troubles de la vision devrait être effectuée chez les enfants avant qu'ils ne fréquentent l'école primaire. Cependant, l'absence de recommandations nationales cohérentes crée de la confusion chez les patients, les professionnels des soins oculovisuels et les gouvernements. MéTHODES: L'objectif de ce document est de fournir des recommandations quant aux types d'examens oculaires à pratiquer chez les enfants en bonne santé de 0 à 5 ans ainsi que sur le moment et la périodicité de tels examens. Une recension des écrits a produit 403 articles. Un comité d'experts multidisciplinaire (composé de deux optométristes, d'un ophtalmologiste effectuant des examens complets de la vue, d'un ophtalmologiste pratiquant en pédiatrie, d'un médecin de famille et d'un pédiatre) a établi de façon indépendante les articles jugés essentiels à la question clinique. Les articles se prêtant à un classement [n = 16] ont ensuite été soumis à une évaluation critique indépendante par un groupe externe, lequel a fourni un profil « GRADE ¼ des articles à utiliser et leur a attribué une cote. RECOMMANDATIONS: En plus du dépistage de routine effectué par les professionnels de première ligne, un examen complet de la vue mené par un professionnel possédant l'expertise nécessaire à la détection des facteurs de risque de l'amblyopie (comme un ophtalmologiste ou un optométriste) est requis durant la petite enfance. Les conclusions confirment l'importance de la détection précoce de l'amblyopie avant 36 mois et au plus tard 48 mois par le dépistage assorti d'au moins un examen complet de la vue avant l'âge de 5 ans. CONCLUSIONS: Le dépistage de la vue effectué chez les bébés et les enfants par les fournisseurs de soins de première ligne au cours des consultations de routine et des vaccinations périodiques est un élément essentiel de la détection des maladies oculaires. Toutefois, le potentiel de détection précoce est limité et un examen oculovisuel complet est également recommandé avant que l'enfant n'entre à l'école. Si l'amblyopie, le strabisme ou une autre pathologie oculaire est détecté ou soupçonné, et que le problème dépasse le champ de compétences du professionnel qui examine le patient, celui-ci peut être dirigé vers le spécialiste approprié, ce qui permet d'amorcer le traitement en temps opportun.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the periodic eye examination in children aged 0-5 years in Canada.

BACKGROUND: As eye disease before age 5 years is common, some form of vision screening should be performed on children before attending primary school. However, the lack of consistent national recommendations creates confusion for patients, eye care professionals, and governments alike. METHODS: The objective of this document is to provide guidance on the recommended timing, intervals, and types of ocular assessments for healthy children aged 0-5 years. A literature search yielded 403 articles. A multidisciplinary expert committee (comprising 2 optometrists, a comprehensive ophthalmologist, a pediatric ophthalmologist, a family physician, and a pediatrician) independently determined those articles deemed to be key to the clinical question. Articles that were gradable (n = 16) were then submitted for independent critical appraisal by an external review group, which provided a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation profile of the reviewed articles to use for assigning a grade of evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to routine screening by a primary health care professional, a comprehensive eye examination by an individual with the expertise to detect risk factors for amblyopia-such as an ophthalmologist or optometrist-is required in early childhood. The findings support the importance of early detection of amblyopia before 36 months and no later than 48 months of age via screening with at least 1 comprehensive eye examination before age 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Vision screening performed by primary health care providers during routine well-baby/child visits and scheduled vaccinations is an essential part of the detection of ocular disease. However, this early detection potential is limited, and a full oculovisual assessment is also recommended before the child entering the school system. If amblyopia, strabismus, or other eye pathology is detected or suspected that is beyond the scope of the eye care professional examining the patient, a referral to the appropriate specialist can be made, allowing treatment to be initiated in a timely fashion.

Value of Routine Eye Examinations in Asymptomatic Patients.

PURPOSE: To determine if routine eye examinations in asymptomatic patients result in spectacle prescription change, new critical diagnosis, or new management of existing conditions. We also investigate whether age and time between assessments (assessment interval) impact detection rates. METHODS: The Waterloo Eye Study (WatES) database was created from a retrospective file review of 6397 patients seen at the University of Waterloo Optometry Clinic. Significant changes since the previous assessment (significant change) were defined as a change in spectacle prescription, presence of a new critical diagnosis, or a new management. Significant change, assessment interval, and age were extracted from the database for all asymptomatic patients presenting for a routine eye examination. The frequency of patients with significant change and the median assessment interval were determined for different age groups. RESULTS: Of 2656 asymptomatic patients, 1078 (41%) patients had spectacle prescription changes, 434 (16%) patients had new critical diagnoses, 809 (31%) patients had new managements, and 1535 (58%) patients had at least one of these (significant change). Median assessment intervals were 2.9 and 2.8 years for age groups 40 to <65 years and 20 to <40 years, respectively, approximately 1.5 years for patients 7 to <20, and between 1 and 1.5 years for patients <7 or >64. Controlling for assessment interval and sex, increasing age was associated with having a significant change (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.029-1.037). Similarly, controlling for age and sex, increased assessment interval was associated with having a significant change (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients, comprehensive routine optometric eye examinations detect a significant number of new eye conditions and/or result in management changes. The number detected increases with age and assessment interval.

Does government assistance improve utilization of eye care services by low-income individuals?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether government-funded, low-income vision care programs improve use of eye care services by low-income individuals in Canada. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: 27,375 white respondents to the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) Healthy Aging 2008/2009. METHODS: Government-funded, low-income vision care programs were reviewed. The amount of assistance provided was compared with professional fee schedules for general/routine eye examinations and market prices for eyeglasses. The utilization of eye care providers was derived from the CCHS. RESULTS: To receive low-income vision care assistance, individuals must be in receipt of social assistance. Criteria for receiving social assistance are stringent. The Canadian Financial Capability Survey revealed that 7.9% of Canadians aged 45 to 64 years and 5.5% aged ≥65 years received social assistance in 2009. The CCHS found in 2008/2009 that 12.5% of citizens aged 45 to 64 years and 13.2% of those aged ≥65 years had difficulty paying for basic expenses such as food. In 5 provinces, low-income vision care assistance fully covers a general/routine eye examination. In the remainder, the assistance provided is insufficient for a general/routine eye examination. The assistance for eyeglasses is inadequate in 5 provinces, requiring out-of-pocket copayments. Among middle-aged whites who self-reported not having glaucoma, cataracts, diabetes, or vision problems not corrected by lenses, utilization of eye care providers was 28.1% among those with financial difficulty versus 41.9% among those without (p < 0.05), giving a prevalence ratio 0.68 (95% CI 0.57-0.80) adjusted for age, sex and education. CONCLUSIONS: Despite government assistance, low-income individuals use vision care services less often than wealthy individuals.