A population-level post-screening treatment cost framework to help inform vision screening choices for children under the age of seven

Download

Preview

Text (Open Access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading. | Preview

Available under license: Creative Commons Attribution

[thumbnail of Photoscreening vs VA screening costs R3 Final.pdf]

Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only

Restricted to Repository staff only

[thumbnail of Treatment cost draft for Strab paper spreadsheets.pdf]

Preview

Text - Supplemental Material
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading. | Preview

Advice

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Tools

Lists

Horwood, A. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0886-9686, Heijnsdijk, E., Kik, J., Sloot, F., Carlton, J., Griffiths, H. J. and Simonsz, H. J. (2023) A population-level post-screening treatment cost framework to help inform vision screening choices for children under the age of seven. Strabismus, 31 (3). pp. 220-235. ISSN 1744-5132 doi: 10.1080/09273972.2023.2268128

Abstract/Summary

Purpose/Background, Visual acuity (VA) screening in children primarily detects low VA and amblyopia between 3-6 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 modelling 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 the 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.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type	Article
URI	https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/113444
Identification Number/DOI	10.1080/09273972.2023.2268128
Refereed	Yes
Divisions	Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Psychology Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Development Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Nutrition and Health
Uncontrolled Keywords	Child Vision Screening Photoscreening Cost-effectiveness Treatment costs
Publisher	Taylor and Francis
Download/View statistics	View download statistics for this item

Download Statistics

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Deposit Details

Date Deposited:	03 Oct 2023 13:19	Date item deposited into CentAUR
Last Modified:	16 Jan 2025 02:58	Date item last modified

References

1. Wilson JMG, G J. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: WHO; 1968. 2. Lowry EA, Campomanes AGdA. Cost-effectiveness of School-Based Eye Examinations in Preschoolers Referred for Follow-up From Visual Screening. Jama Ophthalmology. 2016;134(6):658-64. 3. Membreno JH, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Beauchamp GR. A cost-utility analysis of therapy for amblyopia. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(12):2265-71. 4. Heijnsdijk EAM, Verkleij ML, Carlton J, Horwood AM, Fronius M, Kik J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: A microsimulation study. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2022;28:101868. 5. Evans JR, Lawrenson JG, Ramke J, Virgili G, Gordon I, Lingham G, et al. Identification and critical appraisal of evidence for interventions for refractive error to support the development of the WHO package of eye care interventions: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022;42(3):526-33. 6. Carlton J, Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith KJ, Marr J. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4-5 years: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2008;12(25):iii, xi-194. 7. Carlton J, Griffiths HJ, Mazzone P, Horwood AM, Sloot F, Study Consortium E. A Comprehensive Overview of Vision Screening Programmes across 46 Countries. British and Irish Orthoptic Journal. 2022;18(1):27-47. 8. Stiff H, Dimenstein N, Larson SA. Vision screening outcomes in children less than 3 years of age compared with children 3 years and older. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus {JAAPOS}. 2020;24(5):293.e1-.e4. 9. Konig HH, Barry JC. Economic evaluation of different methods of screening for amblyopia in kindergarten. Pediatrics. 2002;109(4):e59. 10. Rein DB, Wittenborn JS, Zhang X, Song M, Saaddine JB, Vision Cost-Effectiveness S. The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Amblyopia Screening Programs. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus. 2012;49(3):146-55. 11. Van der Ploeg CPB, Grevinga M, Eekhout I, Vlasblom E, Lanting CI, van Minderhout HM, et al. Costs and effects of conventional vision screening and photoscreening in the Dutch preventive child health care system. European Journal of Public Health. 2020;31:7-12. 12. UK National Screening Committee. UK NSC Recommendation on Vision defects screening in children. London: Public Health England; 2013. DOI: https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/vision-child. Accessed 3/07/2023 13. Griffiths H, Carlton J, Mazzone P. BIOS Screening Audit report 2015-2016.: British and Irish Orthoptic Society; 2017. https://figshare.shef.ac.uk/articles/BIOS_Screening_Audit_report_2016-2017/6839813/1 [Accessed 15 January 2019]. 14. Griffiths H, Carlton J, Mazzone P. BIOS Screening Audit report 2016-2017. British and Irish Orthoptic Society; 2018. https://figshare.com/articles/BIOS_Screening_Audit_report_2015-2016/5532910 [Accessed 15 January 2019]. 15. Miller J, Dobson V, Harvey E, Sherrill D. Cost-Efficient Vision Screening for Astigmatism in Native American Preschool Children. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2003;44(9):3756-63. 16. Lowry EA, Campomanes AGdA. Efficient Referral Thresholds in Autorefraction-Based Preschool Screening. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015;159(6):1180-7. 17. Asare AO, Wong AMF, Maurer D, Kulandaivelu Y, Saunders N, Ungar WJ. Economic evaluations of vision screening to detect amblyopia and refractive errors in children: a systematic review. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2022;113(2):297-311. 18. Horwood AM, Griffiths HJ, Carlton J, Mazzone P, Channa A, Nordmann M, et al. Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia—a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data. Eye. 2020;35:739-52. 19. Leman R, Clausen MM, Bates J, Stark L, Arnold KK, Arnold RW. A comparison of patched HOTV visual acuity and photoscreening. The Journal of school nursing : the official publication of the National Association of School Nurses. 2006;22(4):237-43. 20. EUSCREEN Foundation. Cost-effectiveness model 2021 [Available from: Cost-effectiveness model. https://www.euscreen.org/cost-effectiveness-model/ (accessed 3/07/2023) 21. Kik J, Heijnsdijk EAM, Mackey AR, Carr G, Horwood AM, Fronius M, et al. Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes. Journal of medical screening. 2022; 1-7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09691413221126677 22. Arnold RW, Armitage D, Gionet EG, Balinger A, Kovtoun TA, Machida C, et al. The cost and yield of photoscreening: Impact of photoscreening on overall pediatric ophthalmic costs. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus. 2005;42(2):103-11. 23. Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M, Friedman T, Naor J, Eibschitz N, Friedman Z. Early screening for amblyogenic risk factors lowers the prevalence and severity of amblyopia. J AAPOS. 2000;4(4):194-9. 24. Systematic review of the scope and cost-effectiveness of the use of photoscreening as a test for childhood vision impairment PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018110283. 2020 [cited 10/01/2023]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018110283. 25. Horwood A, Lysons D, Sandford D, Richardson G. Costs and Effectiveness of Two Models of School-Entry Visual Acuity Screening in the UK. Strabismus. 2021;29(3):174–81 26. Pentland L, Patel S. Scottish Pre-School Vision Screening – First 3 Years of National Data. British and Irish Orthoptic Journal,. 2020;16(1):13–8. 27. Oliveira I, Ferreira A, Vieira R, Malheiro L, Caiado F, Maia S, et al. The Impact of Early Photoscreening on Medium-term Visual Acuity: A Population-Based Study. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus. 2022. 28. Leone JF, Mitchell P, Kifley A, Rose KA, Sydney Childhood Eye S. Normative visual acuity in infants and preschool-aged children in Sydney. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(7):e521-9. 29. Stewart C, Moseley M, Fielder A, Stephens D, MOTAScooperative. Refractive adaptation in amblyopia: quantification of effect and implications for practice. Brit J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(12):1541-2. 30. Clarke MP. Randomised controlled trial of treatment of unilateral visual impairment detected at preschool vision screening. BMJ. 2003;327(7426):1251-0. 31. Greenwood JA, Tailor VK, Sloper JJ, Simmers AJ, Bex PJ, Dakin SC. Visual acuity, crowding, and stereo-vision are linked in children with and without amblyopia. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2012. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53(12):7655-65. 32. Holmes JM, Beck RW, Kraker RT, Astle WF, Birch EE, Cole SR, et al. Risk of amblyopia recurrence after cessation of treatment. J AAPOS. 2004;8(5):420-8. 33. Moghaddam AA, Kargozar A, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Najjaran M, Nozari V, Shakeri MT. Screening for amblyopia risk factors in pre-verbal children using the Plusoptix photoscreener: a cross-sectional population-based study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(1):83-6. 34. Longmuir SQ, Boese EA, Pfeifer W, Zimmerman B, Short L, Scott WE. Practical Community Photoscreening in Very Young Children. Pediatrics. 2013;131(3):e764-e9. 35. Farbrother JE. Spectacle prescribing in childhood: a survey of hospital optometrists. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(3):392-5. 36. Pfeifer WL, Scott WE, Longmuir SQ. Comparison of prescribing patterns of ophthalmologists and optometrists to published guidelines. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus {JAAPOS}. 2014;18(4):e35-e6. 37. Leat S. To prescribe or not to prescribe? Guidelines for spectacle prescribing in infants and children. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2011;94(6):514-27. 38. Lowry EA, Lui R, Enanoria W, Keenan J, De Alba Campomanes AG. Repeat Retinomax screening changes positive predictive value. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2014;18(1):45-9. 39. Goodman L, Chakraborty A, Paudel N, Yu T-Y, Jacobs RJ, Harding JE, et al. Vision screening at two years does not reduce the prevalence of reduced vision at four and a half years of age. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2018;101(4):527-34. 40. White E, Walsh L. The impact of occlusion therapy and predictors on amblyopia dose–response relationship. Strabismus. 2022;30(2):78-89. 41. Repka MX, Kraker RT, Holmes JM, Summers AI, Glaser SR, Barnhardt CN, et al. Atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia: follow-up at 15 years of age of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(7):799-805. 42. Holmes JM, Lazar EL, Melia BM, Astle WF, Dagi LR, Donahue SP, et al. Effect of Age on Response to Amblyopia Treatment in Children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(11):1451-7. 43. Holmes JM, Lazar E, Melia M, Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator G. Response to Amblyopia Therapy Depends on Child's Age. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(5):4757. 44. Wallace DK, Chandler DL, Beck RW, Arnold RW, Bacal DA, Birch EE, et al. Treatment of bilateral refractive amblyopia in children three to less than 10 years of age. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144(4):487-96. 45. Stewart C, Moseley M, Fielder A, Stephens D, Cooperative. M. Treatment Dose-response Relationship for Occlusion Therapy for the Treatment of Amblyopia: Results from the MOTAS Study. Invest Ophthalmol VisSci 2004;45:3048-54. 46. Donahue SP. The relationship between anisometropia, patient age, and the development of amblyopia. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2005;103:313-36. 47. Williams C, Northstone K, Harrad R, Sparrow J, Harvey I. Amblyopia treatment outcomes after preschool screening v school entry screening: observational data from a prospective cohort study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:988-93. 48. Hunter D, Cotter S. Early diagnosis of amblyopia. Vis Neurosci. 2018;35:E013. 49. Solebo AL, Cumberland PM, Rahi JS. Whole-population vision screening in children aged 4-5 years to detect amblyopia. Lancet. 2015;385(9984):2308-19. 50. Clarke M. Review of amblyopia treatment: are we overtreating children with amblyopia. Brit & Irish Orthoptic J. 2010;7:3-7. 51. Arnold RW, Donahue SP, Silbert DI, Longmuir SQ, Bradford GE, Peterseim MMW, et al. AAPOS uniform guidelines for instrument-based pediatric vision screen validation 2021. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2022;26:E1-.E6. 52. Dahlmann-Noor AH, Vrotsou K, Kostakis V, Brown J, Heath J, Iron A, et al. Vision screening in children by Plusoptix Vision Screener compared with gold-standard orthoptic assessment. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(3):342-5. 53. Kemper AR, Clark SJ. Preschool vision screening by family physicians. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2007;44(1):24-7. 54. Donahue SP, Baker JD, Scott WE, Rychwalskii P, Neely DE, Tong P, et al. Lions Clubs International Foundation core four photoscreening: Results from 17 programs and 400,000 preschool children. JAAPOS. 2006;10(1):44-8. 55. Sloot F, Sami A, Karaman H, Benjamins J, Loudon SE, Raat H, et al. Effect of omission of population-based eye screening at age 6-9 months in the Netherlands. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;93:318-21. 56. Carlton J, Griffiths H, Horwood A, Mazzone P, Walker R, Simonsz H. Acceptability of childhood screening: a systematic narrative review. Public Health. 2021;193:126-38. 57. Kik J, Nordmann M, Cainap S, Mara M, Rajka D, Ghițiu M, et al. Implementation of paediatric vision screening in urban and rural areas in Cluj County, Romania. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2021;20(1):256. 58. Longmuir SQ, Pfeifer W, Leon A, Olson RJ, Short L, Scott WE. Nine-year results of a volunteer lay network photoscreening program of 147 809 children using a photoscreener in Iowa. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(10):1869-75. 59. Hendler K, Mehravaran S, Lu X, Brown SI, Mondino BJ, Coleman AL. Refractive Errors and Amblyopia in the UCLA Preschool Vision Program; First Year Results. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;172:80-6. 60. Darusman K. Amblyopia risk factors findings in preschool children in Jakarta, Indonesia using the Plusoptix pediatric autorefractor A09. Int Eye Sci. 2014;14(12):2119-21. 61. Arnold RW, Armitage MD, Gionet EG, Balinger A, Kovtoun TA, Machida C, et al. The cost and yield of photoscreening: impact of photoscreening on overall pediatric ophthalmic costs. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2005;42(2):103-11. 62. Sloot F, Sami A, Karaman H, Gutter M, Benjamins J, Sjoerdsma T, et al. Semistructured Observation of Population-based Eye Screening in The Netherlands. Strabismus. 2017;25:1-8. 63. Donahue SP, Arthur B, Neely DE, Arnold RW, Silbert D, Ruben JB. Guidelines for automated preschool vision screening: a 10-year, evidence-based update. J aapos. 2013;17(1):4-8. 64. Clarke N, Shacks J, Kerr ARE, Bottrell CL, Poulsen MK, Yin L. Use of a Noncycloplegic Autorefractor to Perform Vision Screening in Preschools. Journal of School Nursing. 2008;24(3):158-63. 65. Hutchinson, A, Morse, CL, Hercinovic, A, Cruz, OA, Sprunger, DT,Repka, M, Lambert, SR, Wallace, D, AAO PPP Pediatric Ophthalmology /Strabismus Panel. Pediatric Eye Evaluations PPP – 2022. American Academy of Ophthalmology 2022 https://www.aao.org/education/preferred-practice-pattern/pediatric-eye-evaluations-ppp-2022 (accessed 3/07/2023) 66. Tarczy-Hornoch K. Wait, what are we screening for again? Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus {JAAPOS}. 2022;26(2):55-7. 67. Ciner EB, Kulp MT, Pistilli M, Ying GS, Maguire M, Candy TR, et al. Associations between visual function and magnitude of refractive error for emmetropic to moderately hyperopic 4- and 5-year-old children in the Vision in Preschoolers - Hyperopia in Preschoolers Study. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021;41(3):553-64. 68. Chung I, Kulp M, Mitchell G, Frantz K, Bartolone A, Stone W, et al. A Randomized Clinical Trial of Short-Term Effects of Glasses Correction for Low to Moderate Hyperopia in Children: A Pilot Study. Vision Development & Rehabilitation. 2021;7(3):177-94. 69. Bruinenberg A, Nordmann M, Asjes-Tydeman WL, Sanders D, van Ommen R, Benjamins J, et al. Preparation of the Early Glasses Study: a randomized, controlled trial investigating the effect of early glasses for high refractive error on the development of amblyopia. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2021;62(8):145-. 70. Kumaran SE, Rakshit A, Hussaindeen JR, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. Does non-strabismic amblyopia affect the quality of life of adults? Findings from a qualitative study. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2021;41(5):996-1006. 71. Black AA, Wood JM, Hoang S, Thomas E, Webber AL. Impact of Amblyopia on Visual Attention and Visual Search in Children. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2021;62(4):15-. 72. Birch EE, Kelly KR. Amblyopia and the whole child. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. 2023;93:101168. 73. Harrington S, Davison PA, O'Dwyer V. School performance and undetected and untreated visual problems in schoolchildren in Ireland; a population-based cross-sectional study. Irish Educational Studies. 2021:1-22. 74. Rosa H-A, Adrián A-C, Beatriz I-S, María-José L-C, Miguel-Ángel S. Psychomotor, Psychosocial and Reading Skills in Children with Amblyopia and the Effect of Different Treatments. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2020:1-9. 75. Kelly KR, Morale SE, Beauchamp CL, Dao LM, Luu BA, Birch EE. Factors Associated with Impaired Motor Skills in Strabismic and Anisometropic Children. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2020;61(10):43-. 76. Horvat-Gitsels LA, Cortina-Borja M, Rahi JS. Educational attainment and trajectories at key stages of schooling for children with amblyopia compared to those without eye conditions: Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study. PLOS ONE. 2023;18(3):e0283786. 77. Steel DA, Codina CJ, Arblaster GE. Amblyopia treatment and quality of life: the child’s perspective on atropine versus patching. Strabismus. 2019: 27(3):156-164 78. Birch EE, Castañeda YS, Cheng-Patel CS, Morale SE, Kelly KR, Beauchamp CL, et al. Self-perception of School-aged Children With Amblyopia and Its Association With Reading Speed and Motor Skills. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2019;137(2):167-74. 79. Birch EE, Kelly KR, Giaschi DE. Fellow Eye Deficits in Amblyopia. Journal of Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility. 2019;69(3):116-25. 80. Stewart CE, Wallace MP, Stephens DA, Fielder AR, Moseley MJ. The effect of amblyopia treatment on stereoacuity. Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus / American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2013;17(2):166-73. 81. Webber AL, Wood JM, Thompson B. Fine Motor Skills of Children With Amblyopia Improve Following Binocular TreatmentBinocular Treatment Improves Fine Motor Skills. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2016;57(11):4713-20. 82. Kelly KR, Jost RM, De La Cruz A, Dao L, Beauchamp CL, Stager D, Jr., et al. Slow reading in children with anisometropic amblyopia is associated with fixation instability and increased saccades. J AAPOS 2017: 21(6):447-451.e1. 83. Kelly KR, Jost RM, De La Cruz A, Birch EE. Amblyopic children read more slowly than controls under natural, binocular reading conditions. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2015;19(6):515-20. 84. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Impact of Patching and Atropine Treatment on the Child and Family in the Amblyopia Treatment Study. Archives Of Ophthalmology. 2003;121(11):1625-32. 85. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator G. A Randomized Trial of Atropine vs Patching for Treatment of Moderate Amblyopia: Follow-up at Age 10 Years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(8):1039-44. 86. Dirani M, Shekar SN, Baird PN. The Role of Educational Attainment in Refraction: The Genes in Myopia (GEM) Twin Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(2):534-8.

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar