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.

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes.

OBJECTIVE: For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. METHODS: The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017-2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire. RESULTS: The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.

A Comprehensive Overview of Vision Screening Programmes across 46 Countries.

Purpose: To describe and compare vision screening programmes and identify variance in number and type of tests used, timing of screening, personnel involved, monitoring and funding to be used as data for optimising, disinvesting or implementing future screening programmes. Methods: A questionnaire consisting of nine domains: demography & epidemiology, administration & general background, existing screening, coverage & attendance, tests, follow-up & diagnosis, treatment, cost & benefit and adverse effects was completed by Country Representatives (CRs) recruited from 47 countries. Results: The questionnaire was sufficiently completed for 46 Countries: 42 European countries, China, India, Malawi and Rwanda. Variation of provision was found in; age of screening (0-17 years), tests included (23), types of visual acuity (VA) test used (35 different optotypes), personnel (13), number of screens per child (median 5, range 1-32), and times VA tested (median 3, range 1-30). Infant screening is offered in all countries, whereas childhood vision screening is offered at least once in all countries, but not all regions of each country. All 46 countries provide vision screening between the ages of 3-7 years. Data on screening outcomes for quality assurance was not available from most countries; complete evaluation data was available in 2% of countries, partial data from 43%. Conclusion: Vision screening is highly variable. Some form of VA testing is being undertaken during childhood. Data collection and sharing should be improved to facilitate comparison and to be able to optimise vision screening programmes between regions and countries.

Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia-a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data.

BACKGROUND: Amblyopia screening can target reduced visual acuity (VA), its refractive risk factors, or both. VA testing is imprecise under 4 years of age, so automated risk-factor photoscreening appears an attractive option. This review considers photoscreening used in community services, focusing on costs, cost-effectiveness and scope of use, compared with EUSCREEN project Country Reports describing how photo- and automated screening is used internationally. METHODS: A systematic narrative review was carried out of all English language photoscreening literature to September 10th 2018, using publicly available search terms. Where costs were considered, a CASP economic evaluation checklist was used to assess data quality. RESULTS: Of 370 abstracts reviewed, 55 reported large-scale community photoscreening projects. Five addressed cost-effectiveness specifically, without original data. Photoscreening was a stand-alone, single, test event in 71% of projects. In contrast, 25 of 45 EUSCREEN Country Reports showed that if adopted, photoscreening often supplements other tests in established programmes and is rarely used as a stand-alone test. Reported costs varied widely and evidence of cost-effectiveness was sparse in the literature, or in international practice. Only eight (13%) papers compared the diagnostic accuracy or cost-effectiveness of photoscreening and VA testing, and when they did, cost-effectiveness of photoscreening compared unfavourably. DISCUSSION: Evidence that photoscreening reduces amblyopia or strabismus prevalence or improves overall outcomes is weak, as is evidence of cost-effectiveness, compared to later VA screening. Currently, the most cost-effective option seems to be a later, expert VA screening with the opportunity for a re-test before referral.

The Provision of Patient Information about Nystagmus.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to evaluate the current provision of patient information about nystagmus in orthoptic clinics in the UK and Ireland and to develop a standardised information pack about nystagmus. METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated to orthoptists in the UK and Ireland asking whether they had information to provide to patients with nystagmus, what was included in this information and how it could be improved. Orthoptists were also asked what should be included in a standardised information pack about nystagmus. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty three orthoptists completed the questionnaire. One-third of responding orthoptists did not have information to provide to patients with nystagmus. Most reported the information available to them included details of support services and physical symptoms. Including information about living with nystagmus at different ages and long-term prognosis were the most common suggestions to improve information about nystagmus. More than half of orthoptists selected all the suggested topics to be included in a standardised information pack, with support services and long-term prognosis most frequently selected. CONCLUSIONS: Only 67% of responding orthoptists had information about nystagmus to give to patients or their families. Ways to improve the current information and content considered important by orthoptists were taken into account to create a nystagmus information pack, which is now available online.

Temporary incyclotorsion following surgical correction of bilateral superior oblique palsy.

We report three patients with acquired bilateral superior oblique paresis who had bilateral modified Harada-Ito procedures, which resulted in significant incyclotorsion (ranging from 6 degrees to 19 degrees ) on the first day postoperatively. For Case 1 this was the only procedure, while Cases 2 and 3 also underwent simultaneous bilateral inferior oblique weakening. This overcorrection decreased spontaneously over the following 8 months to leave all patients asymptomatic. One patient returned 8 years following the initial surgery with symptoms of diplopia and recurrence of excyclotorsion.

Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. METHODS: Themes for comparison of screening programmes derived from literature were used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing, and public health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age, and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity, and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU full-member, candidate, and associate states. Answers were cross-checked. RESULTS: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% of these more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before age five. At age three and four, picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen, are used most; in children over four, Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test, otoacoustic emission is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after 1-4 abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists, or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. CONCLUSION: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1-4), and funding sources (8).