Dataset Information

Economic evaluations of vision screening to detect amblyopia and refractive errors in children: a systematic review

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To synthesize and appraise economic evaluations of vision screening to detect vision impairment in children.

Methods

Literature searches were conducted on seven electronic databases, grey literature, and websites of agencies conducting health technology assessments. Studies were included if they (1) were full, comparative economic evaluations that used cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequence, or cost-analysis methods; (2) described screening services designed to detect amblyopia, strabismus, or uncorrected refractive errors in children under 6 years of age; and (3) published after 1994. High-quality studies were synthesized descriptively. Currencies were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars. Quality was assessed with the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ).

Results

Vision screening services were conducted by paid staff, volunteers, or health care professionals in schools or clinics. Thirteen studies were published from five countries: China (n = 1), United States (n = 4), United Kingdom (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), and Germany (n = 6). Analytical techniques included cost-utility/cost-effectiveness combination (n = 2), cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 7), cost-utility analysis (n = 1), cost-benefit analysis (n = 1), cost-consequence analysis (n = 1), and cost analysis (n = 1). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from C$1,056 to C$151,274 per additional case detected/prevented and from C$9,429 to C$30,254,703 per additional QALY gained, depending on the type of screening service and comparator. Six studies were determined to be of high quality.

Conclusion

Vision screening to detect amblyopia for young children may be cost-effective compared with no screening if amblyopia reduced quality of life. Studies varied significantly in the type of screening services and comparators used. Methodological limitations were common. Future studies would be aided immensely by prospective studies on the impact of amblyopia on the health-related quality of life of young children and guidelines on the effective conduct of vision screening.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.17269/s41997-021-00572-x.

SUBMITTER: Asare A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8577413 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objective: Amblyopia is the leading cause of visual impairment in children and adults and is very common during childhood. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence and the risk factors of amblyopia in a pediatric population with refractive errors from an Eastern European country. Materials and methods: A total of 1231 children aged 5?16 years, who had refractive errors and were examined from January to August 2017, were enrolled in a cross-sectional population-based study. Every child underwent a complete ophthalmological exam. Amblyopia was defined as a visual acuity (VA) of less than 0.63. The study respected the Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study (MEPEDS) criteria for defining amblyopia (MEPEDS, 2008). Parents participated in a face-to-face interview. The questionnaire contained details about their family history of amblyopia; the child's maternal nutritional status in the preconception period; their history of maternal smoking or work in a toxic environment; the child's birth, and the child's history of congenital naso-lacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO). Results: Amblyopia was identified in 2.8% of the participants. The ocular conditions hyperopia (p = 0.0079), astigmatism (p = 0.046), anisometropia (p < 0.001), esotropia (p < 0.001), exotropia (p = 0.0195), and CNLDO (p < 0.001), as well as a family history of amblyopia (p < 0.001), were associated with amblyopia. The non-ocular risk factors for amblyopia that were found in the study included low birth weight (p < 0.0009), prematurity (p < 0.001), an Apgar score under 7 (p = 0.0008), maternal age, maternal smoking history or work in toxic environment (p < 0.001), and maternal body mass index in the preconception period (p < 0.003). Conclusions: Some of the risk factors we identified for amblyopia are modifiable factors. This is an important observation as an adequate health education program can provide the relevant information for future mothers that will allow for a better management of the condition. We also wanted to highlight the need for amblyopia screening starting from the age of 3 years in case of significant parental refractive errors, strabismus, prematurity, and maternal risk factors.

Project description:ImportanceScreening for amblyopia in primary care visits is recommended for young children, yet screening rates are poor. Although the prevalence of amblyopia is low (3%-5%) among young children, universal screening in schools and mandatory optometric examinations may improve vision care, but the cost-effectiveness of these vision testing strategies compared with the standard in primary care is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of universal school screening and mandated optometric examinations compared with standard care vision screening in primary care visits in Toronto, Canada, with the aim of detecting and facilitating treatment of amblyopia and amblyopia risk factors from the Ontario government's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsAn economic evaluation was conducted from July 2019 to May 2021 using a Markov model to compare 15-year costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between school screening and optometric examination compared with primary care screening in Toronto, Canada. Parameters were derived from published literature, the Ontario Schedule of Benefits and Fees, and the Kindergarten Vision Testing Program. A hypothetical cohort of 25 000 children aged 3 to 5 years was simulated. It was assumed that children in the cohort had irreversible vision impairment if not diagnosed by an optometrist. In addition, incremental costs and outcomes of 0 were adjusted to favor the reference strategy. Vision testing programs were designed to detect amblyopia and amblyopia risk factors.Main outcomes and measuresFor each strategy, the mean costs per child included the costs of screening, optometric examinations, and treatment. The mean health benefits (QALYs) gained were informed by the presence of vision impairment and the benefits of treatment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each alternative strategy relative to the standard primary care screening strategy as the additional cost required to achieve an additional QALY at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 Canadian dollars (CAD) ($37 690) per QALY gained.ResultsSchool screening relative to primary care screening yielded cost savings of CAD $84.09 (95% CI, CAD $82.22-$85.95) (US $63.38 [95% CI, US $61.97-$64.78]) per child and an incremental gain of 0.0004 (95% CI, -0.0047 to 0.0055) QALYs per child. Optometric examinations relative to primary care screening yielded cost savings of CAD $74.47 (95% CI, CAD $72.90-$76.03) (US $56.13 [95% CI, $54.95-$57.30]) per child and an incremental gain of 0.0508 (95% CI, 0.0455-0.0561) QALYs per child. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD $50 000 (US $37 690) per QALY gained, school screening and optometric examinations were cost-effective relative to primary care screening in only 20% and 29% of iterations, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, because amblyopia prevalence is low among young children and most children in the hypothetical cohort had healthy vision, universal school screening and optometric examinations were not cost-effective relative to primary care screening for detecting amblyopia in young children in Toronto, Canada. The mean added health benefits of school screening and optometric examinations compared with primary care screening did not warrant the resources used.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Permanent childhood hearing loss is one of the most common birth conditions associated with speech and language delay. A hearing screening can result in early detection and intervention for hearing loss. OBJECTIVES:To update and expand previous systematic reviews of economic evaluations of childhood hearing screening strategies, and explore the methodological differences. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane database, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's (CADTH) Grey matters. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS:Economic evaluations reporting costs and outcomes for both the intervention and comparator arms related to childhood hearing screening strategies. RESULTS:Thirty evaluations (from 29 articles) were included for review. Several methodological issues were identified, including: few evaluations reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); none estimated utilities directly from surveying children; none included disutilities and costs associated with adverse events; few included costs and outcomes that differed by severity; few included long-term estimates; none considered acquired hearing loss; some did not present incremental results; and few conducted comprehensive univariate or probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Evaluations published post-2011 were more likely to report QALYs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as outcome measures, include long-term treatment and productivity costs, and present incremental results. LIMITATIONS:We were unable to access the economic models and, although we employed an extensive search strategy, potentially not all relevant economic evaluations were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Most economic evaluations concluded that childhood hearing screening is value for money. However, there were significant methodological limitations with the evaluations.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate the level of compliance of children with refractive errors who are provided free spectacles, and to identify the reasons for non-compliance.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from the time these databases were established to April 2022, including studies published in English. The search terms were "randomized controlled trial" [Publication Type] OR "randomized" [Title/Abstract], OR "placebo" [Title/Abstract]) AND (("Refractive Errors"[MeSH Terms] OR ("error refractive" [Title/Abstract] OR "errors refractive" [Title/Abstract] OR "refractive error" [Title/Abstract] OR "refractive disorders" [Title/Abstract] OR "disorder refractive" [Title/Abstract] OR "disorders refractive" [Title/Abstract] OR "refractive disorder" [Title/Abstract] OR "Ametropia" [Title/Abstract] OR "Ametropias" [Title/Abstract])) AND ("Eyeglasses" [MeSH Terms] OR ("Spectacles" [Title/Abstract] OR "Glasses"[Title/Abstract]) AND ("Adolescent" [MeSH Terms] OR ("Adolescents" [Title/Abstract] OR "Adolescence"[Title/Abstract]) OR "Child"[MeSH Terms] OR "Children"[Title/Abstract])). We only selected studies that were randomized controlled trials. Two researchers independently searched the databases, and 64 articles were retrieved after the initial screening. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the collected data.ResultsFourteen articles were eligible for inclusion, and 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall compliance with spectacle use was 53.11%. There was a statistically significant effect of free spectacles on compliance among children (OR = 2.45; 95% CI = 1.39-4.30). In the subgroup analysis, longer follow-up time was associated with significantly lower reported ORs (6-12 vs. <6 months, OR = 2.30 vs. 3.18). Most studies concluded that sociomorphic factors, RE severity, and other factors contributed to children not wearing glasses at the end of the follow-up.ConclusionThe combination of providing free spectacles along with educational interventions can lead to high levels of compliance among the study participants. Based on this study's findings, we recommend implementing policies that integrate the provision of free spectacles with educational interventions and other measures. In addition, a combination of additional health promotion strategies may be needed to improve the acceptability of refractive services and to encourage the consistent use of eyewear.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=338507, identifier: CRD42022338507.