Search

Background: Uncorrected refractive error is a leading cause of vision impairment which, in most cases, can be managed with the appropriate spectacle correction. In 2021, the World Health Assembly endorsed a global target of a 40-percentage-point increase in effective coverage of refractive error by 2030. To achieve this global target, equitable access to refractive and optical services within community and primary care settings needs to be strengthened. This review will inform the development of technical guidance to support improvements in the testing and correction of refractive error among World Health Organization (WHO) member states., Objectives: To determine the range of approaches for delivery of refractive and optical care services in community and primary care settings, and the methods employed for their evaluation., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health databases, grey literature, and annual reports and websites of relevant organizations involved in eye-care delivery from January 2002 to November 2022 to identify approaches for refractive and optical service delivery., Selection Criteria: We included observational and interventional studies, reviews, and reports from relevant organizations related to delivering refractive services and optical services for preschool and school-aged children and adults in community and primary care settings published between January 2002 and November 2022. We searched for studies and reports published within the last 20 years because vision impairment due to uncorrected refractive error has only recently become a public health and eye health priority, therefore we did not expect to find much relevant literature until after 2002., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts, and extracted data. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We synthesized data, and presented results as tables, figures, and case studies. This project was led by the World Health Organization (WHO) Vision and Eye Care Programme., Main Results: We identified 175 studies from searches of databases and grey literature, 146 records from company reports, and 81 records from website searches of relevant organizations that matched our inclusion criteria. Delivery approaches for refractive and optical services in community care included school-based, pharmacy, and outreach models, whereas primary care approaches comprised vision centre, health centre, and a combination of vision or health centre and door-to-door delivery. In community care, school-based and outreach approaches were predominant, while in primary care, a vision-centre approach was mainly used. In the WHO African region, the school-based and outreach approaches were mainly reported while, in the Americas, the outreach approach was mostly used. Very few approaches for service delivery were reported in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Prominent gaps exist in the evaluation of the approaches, and few studies attempted to evaluate the approaches for delivery of refractive and optical care services., Authors' Conclusions: We comprehensively describe a range of approaches for delivery of refractive and optical services in community and primary care. Further evaluation of their effectiveness will better inform the application of these service-delivery approaches. The study outcomes will help guide WHO member states in strengthening refractive and optical services at community and primary care levels., Funding: This scoping review was supported by the Vision and Eye care Programme, World Health Organization and ATscale Global Partnership., Registration: The protocol of this scoping review was published in the Open Source Framework., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: In 2021, WHO Member States endorsed a global target of a 40-percentage-point increase in effective refractive error coverage (eREC; with a 6/12 visual acuity threshold) by 2030. This study models global and regional estimates of eREC as a baseline for the WHO initiative., Methods: The Vision Loss Expert Group analysed data from 565 448 participants of 169 population-based eye surveys conducted since 2000 to calculate eREC (met need/[met need + undermet need + unmet need]). A binary logistic regression model was used to estimate eREC by Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study super region among adults aged 50 years and older., Findings: In 2021, distance eREC was 79·1% (95% CI 72·4-85·0) in the high-income super region; 62·1% (54·7-68·8) in north Africa and Middle East; 49·5% (45·0-54·0) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and central Asia; 40·0% (31·7-48·2) in southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania; 34·5% (29·4-40·0) in Latin America and the Caribbean; 9·0% (6·5-12·0) in south Asia; and 5·7% (3·1-9·0) in sub-Saharan Africa. eREC was higher in men and reduced with increasing age. Global distance eREC increased from 2000 to 2021 by 19·0%. Global near vision eREC for 2021 was 20·5% (95% CI 17·8-24·4)., Interpretation: Over the past 20 years, distance eREC has increased in each super region yet the WHO target will require substantial improvements in quantity and quality of refractive services in particular for near vision impairment., Funding: WHO, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, Fondation Thea, Brien Holden Vision Institute, Lions Clubs International Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JR reports university position funding by Buchanan Charitable Foundation, New Zealand. KSN reports employment by OneSight EssilorLuxottica Foundation. JMF reports research grants from Lions SightFirst & Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil. Tecnológico, Brazil. ​RV reports the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study research grant from the National Eye Institute, where he participates on a Data Monitoring Board or Advisory Board. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. The remaining authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The World Health Organization is developing a Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) to support the integration of eye health care into national health programmes. Interventions included in the PECI should be based on robust evidence where available. Refractive error is a leading cause of blindness and vision impairment and is a PECI priority condition. The aim of this study was to provide high-quality evidence to support the development of the PECI by identifying and critically appraising clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and extracting recommendations for refractive error interventions., Methods: We searched for CPGs on refractive error published in the last 10 years. We conducted the searches initially in February and March 2019 and repeated them in March 2020. We evaluated the quality of potentially relevant guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool., Results: We identified 12 high-quality CPGs relevant to refractive error, written by six organisations from three high-income countries. Organisations used a variety of frameworks to assess the strength of recommendations based on available evidence, with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) being most common. Vision screening for children aged 3 to 5 years was recommended consistently. Evidence for screening and eye evaluations at other ages was weaker, although ophthalmic professional organisations consistently recommended regular evaluations. Recommendations on optical and laser correction of refractive error were limited and did not consider implications for low resource settings. Interventions for slowing myopia progression in children were recommended, but these will need regular updating as new evidence emerges., Conclusions: Current high-quality guidelines on refractive error have been formulated in high-income countries. Recommendations focused on prevention and treatment of refractive error in low-and middle-income countries are lacking. Regular updating of systematic reviews and CPGs is essential to ensure that robust evidence is promptly appraised and incorporated into recommendations for eye health care practitioners., (© 2022 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.)

Importance: In Australia, nationally representative data of the burden and associations of severe uncorrected refractive error are scarce., Background: To report the prevalence and characteristics of severe uncorrected refractive error in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians., Design: Population-based cross-sectional study., Participants: A total of 3098 non-Indigenous Australians aged 50 to 98 and 1738 Indigenous Australians aged 40 to 92 living in 30 randomly selected Australian sites were examined., Methods: Severe uncorrected refractive error was defined as an improvement of ≥2 lines on the logMAR chart in one or both eyes in participants with a presenting visual acuity <6/12., Main Outcome Measure: Severe uncorrected refractive error RESULTS: Prevalence of severe uncorrected refractive error was 11.0% (95% confidence interval 9.3-13.0) in non-Indigenous and 14.5% (12.5-16.7) in Indigenous Australians. Eighty-two percent of non-Indigenous and 77% of Indigenous participants had a spherical equivalent refraction between -2.00D and +2.00D. Indigenous Australians who were older (odds ratio [OR] for 70-79 years vs 40-49 years = 3.59), resided in outer regional areas (OR = 1.78) and did not have an eye examination in the previous 2-years (OR = 1.50) were associated with higher odds of severe uncorrected refractive error. Geographical remoteness (OR = .68 for inner regional), male gender (OR = 1.30), older age (OR for 70-79 years vs 50-59 years = 1.51) and failure to have an eye examination in the previous 2-years (OR = 2.06) were associated with severe uncorrected refractive error among non-Indigenous participants., Conclusions and Relevance: Increased public awareness of the importance of regular optometric examinations may be required in groups at high risk of severe uncorrected refractive error., (© 2019 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.)

Importance: Data on the incidence of presenting vision impairment (PVI) and spectacle coverage rate (SCR) in urban China is limited., Background: To estimate the 6-year incidence and risk factors for PVI and the SCR in urban Southern China., Design: Population-based cohort study., Participants: A total of 1817 participants aged ≥35 years were identified from Guangzhou in 2008 at baseline and 1427 attended follow-up examination in 2014., Methods: Presenting visual acuity (PVA) was measured using the ETDRS chart with habitual spectacles. Participants with PVA ≤20/40 underwent subjective refraction at the follow-up visit. Incidence of PVI was calculated using the WHO and US criteria, respectively. The met-need SCR was defined as the percentage of participants with PVA <20/40 that had been improved to ≥20/40 after correction., Main Outcome Measures: Incidence of PVI and SCR., Results: Incidence of PVI was 8.3% (95%CI, 6.9-9.8) and 12.2% (95%CI, 10.5-14.0) based on the WHO and US definition, respectively. Older age, female, lower education level, more myopic spherical equivalent and worse PVA at baseline were significantly related to a higher PVI incidence based on the WHO criteria, with similar associations identified using the US criteria except for gender. The overall met-need SCR was 42.5%, and was lower among the elderly, more hyperopic participants or participants with lower education level., Conclusions and Relevance: The incidence of PVI is high in urban Southern China and spectacle wearing is available in less than half of those in need. This highlights the needs to promote spectacle coverage even in the urban population., (© 2018 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.)

Objectives: To investigate mobile health product use in Australia and societal and clinician perceptions towards smartphone based visual acuity (VA) assessment tools., Design: Quantitative analysis of a cross-sectional survey delivered to the general public and thematic analysis of in-depth interviews of eye health clinicians., Setting: Online survey within Australia and face-to-face in-depth interviews of clinicians., Participants: 1016 adults were recruited via Survey Monkey Audience, social media (Facebook and Twitter), Rotary Australia and Lions Clubs Australia. Six clinicians were recruited from private and public settings in Melbourne, Australia., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The study assessed socio-demographic characteristics, history of mobile health product use and perceived advantages and potential drawbacks of smartphone based VA assessment tools., Results: A total of 14.4% of the study population had previously used a mobile-based health product. After adjusting for covariates, younger age (p=0.001), male gender (p=0.01) and higher income (>$45 000) were associated with increased likelihood of having used a mobile health product (p=0.005). Seventy-two per cent of participants would use an automated smartphone based VA assessment tool, provided that the accuracy was on par to that of human assessors. Convenience (37.3%) and cost-savings (15.5%) were ranked as the greatest perceived advantages. While test accuracy (50.6%), a lack of personal contact with healthcare providers (18.3%) and data security (11.9%) were the greatest concerns. Themes to emerge from clinician qualitative data included the potential benefits for identifying refractive error in patients, as well as the ability to self-monitor vision. Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of self-testing vision apps and the inability to detect pathology., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a substantial proportion of the Australian population do not use mobile health products. Furthermore, there remains notable concerns, including test accuracy and data privacy, with smartphone-based VA assessment tools by both clinicians and the public., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To present treatment coverage rates and risk factors associated with uncorrected refractive error in Australia., Methods: Thirty population clusters were randomly selected from all geographic remoteness strata in Australia to provide samples of 1738 Indigenous Australians aged 40 years and older and 3098 non-Indigenous Australians aged 50 years and older. Presenting visual acuity was measured and those with vision loss (worse than 6/12) underwent pinhole testing and hand-held auto-refraction. Participants whose corrected visual acuity improved to be 6/12 or better were assigned as having uncorrected refractive error as the main cause of vision loss. The treatment coverage rates of refractive error were calculated (proportion of participants with refractive error that had distance correction and presenting visual acuity better than 6/12), and risk factor analysis for refractive correction was performed., Results: The refractive error treatment coverage rate in Indigenous Australians of 82.2% (95% CI 78.6-85.3) was significantly lower than in non-Indigenous Australians (93.5%, 92.0-94.8) (Odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 0.35-0.75). In Indigenous participants, remoteness (OR 0.41, 0.19-0.89 and OR 0.55, 0.35-0.85 in Outer Regional and Very Remote areas, respectively), having never undergone an eye examination (OR 0.08, 0.02-0.43) and having consulted a health worker other than an optometrist or ophthalmologist (OR 0.30, 0.11-0.84) were risk factors for low coverage. On the other hand, speaking English was a protective factor (OR 2.72, 1.13-6.45) for treatment of refractive error. Compared to non-Indigenous Australians who had an eye examination within one year, participants who had not undergone an eye examination within the past five years (OR 0.08, 0.03-0.21) or had never been examined (OR 0.05, 0.10-0.23) had lower coverage., Conclusion: Interventions that increase integrated optometry services in regional and remote Indigenous communities may improve the treatment coverage rate of refractive error. Increasing refractive error treatment coverage rates in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians through at least five-yearly eye examinations and the provision of affordable spectacles will significantly reduce the national burden of vision loss in Australia.