Dataset Information

Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices compared with optical low vision aids (LVAs), for improving near vision visual function, quality of life and well-being of people with a visual impairment. METHODS:An AB/BA randomized crossover trial design was used. Eighty-two participants completed the study. Participants were current users of optical LVAs who had not tried a p-EVES device before and had a stable visual impairment. The trial intervention was the addition of a p-EVES device to the participant's existing optical LVA(s) for 2 months, and the control intervention was optical LVA use only, for 2 months. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were conducted from a societal perspective. RESULTS:The mean cost of the p-EVES intervention was £448. Carer costs were £30 (4.46 hr) less for the p-EVES intervention compared with the LVA only control. The mean difference in total costs was £417. Bootstrapping gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £736 (95% CI £481 to £1525) for a 7% improvement in near vision visual function. Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ranged from £56 991 (lower 95% CI = £19 801) to £66 490 (lower 95% CI = £23 055). Sensitivity analysis varying the commercial price of the p-EVES device reduced ICERs by up to 75%, with cost per QALYs falling below £30 000. CONCLUSION:Portable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices are likely to be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources for improving near vision visual function, but this does not translate into cost-effective improvements in quality of life, capability or well-being.

SUBMITTER: Bray N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5516226 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial.

Bray Nathan N Brand Andrew A Taylor John J Hoare Zoe Z Dickinson Christine C Edwards Rhiannon T RT

Acta ophthalmologica 20160929 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices compared with optical low vision aids (LVAs), for improving near vision visual function, quality of life and well-being of people with a visual impairment.<h4>Methods</h4>An AB/BA randomized crossover trial design was used. Eighty-two participants completed the study. Participants were current users of optical LVAs who had not tried a p-EVES device before and had a st ...[more]

PMID: 27682985

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo investigate the progression of near vision loss and the cumulative incidence of near vision impairment (NVI) 6 years after initial examination of an urban Chinese cohort.DesignPopulation-based, prospective cohort study.ParticipantsPeople aged ≥35 years examined at baseline in the Yuexiu District of Guangzhou, China.MethodsParticipants examined at baseline were invited for 2-year and 6-year follow-up examinations in 2010 and 2014, respectively. Examinations included noncycloplegic autorefraction and binocular near visual acuity (NVA) with and without current near correction measured at 40 cm using a LogMAR ETDRS near vision tumbling E chart. Those with uncorrected binocular NVA (UCNVA) ≤20/40 underwent subjective refraction to obtain best-corrected binocular NVA (BCNVA).Main outcome measuresChange in UCNVA between baseline and 2014 follow-up examinations and the 6-year cumulative incidence of vision impairment based on 3 definitions: NVA ≤20/40, ≤20/50, and ≤20/63.ResultsAmong the 1817 baseline participants, 1595 (87.8%) were reexamined in 2010 and 1427 (78.5%) in 2014. Mean vision loss between baseline and the 2014 follow-up was 1.54 (±1.74) lines of UCNVA. Vision loss was associated with age 80 years or older, less education, and better baseline UCNVA. The 6-year cumulative incidence of uncorrected binocular NVI (UCNVI) across the 3 vision impairment definitions was 55.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.1%-64.3%), 51.3% (95% CI, 44.0%-58.7%), and 42.4% (95% CI, 35.5%-49.3%), respectively. With best-corrected binocular NVI (BCNVI), incidence was 6.89% (95% CI, 4.28%-9.50%), 5.17% (95% CI, 2.89%-7.44%), and 2.62% (95% CI, 1.11%-4.12%), respectively. A higher incidence of UCNVI was associated with worse baseline UCNVA for all 3 impairment definitions. Similarly, incidence of BCNVI was associated with worse baseline BCNVA, but also with older age and education at the primary level or less. Gender was not significant for either UCNVI or BCNVI.ConclusionsApproximately half of those aged 35 years or older develop UCNVI in 6 years, the overwhelming majority of whom can be corrected with spectacles. Cost-effective strategies to provide spectacles to this at-risk population remains an issue requiring further study.

Dataset Information

Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial.

Publications

Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets