Search

Purpose: Research suggests that there are challenges in the accessibility of eye care for children in England. This study explores the barriers and enablers to eye examinations for children under 5 years of age from the perspective of community optometrists in England. Methods: Optometrists working in community settings were invited to participate in virtual focus group discussions using an online platform based on a topic guide. The discussions were audio‐recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Themes were derived from the focus group data based on the study aim and research question. Results: Thirty optometrists participated in the focus group discussions. The overarching themes identified as barriers to eye examinations for young children in a community setting were as follows: 'Time and Money', 'Knowledge, Skills and Confidence', 'Awareness and Communication', 'Range of Attitudes' and 'Clinical Setting'. The key themes for enabling eye examinations for young children were as follows: 'Improving behaviour', 'Enhancing training and education', 'Enhancing eye care services', 'Raising awareness', 'Changes in professional bodies' and 'Balancing commercial pressures and health care'. Conclusion: Time, money, training and equipment are perceived by optometrists as key factors in providing an eye examination for a young child. This study identified a need for improved training and robust governance related to eye examinations for young children. There is a need for change within eye care service delivery such that all children, regardless of age and ability, are examined regularly, and by conducting these examinations, optometrists remain confident. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Good vision during childhood is vital for visual, educational, and social development. Previous research highlights challenges in the accessibility of eye care for children. This study investigates the accessibility of primary eye care for young children with typical development and those with autism in England. Methods: A telephone survey was conducted using four hypothetical scenarios (a child aged 1, 3, 5 years and a 13‐year‐old with autism). Four hundred community optometric practices (100 different practices for each scenario) were contacted to explore the availability of an eye examination. The caller acted as a parent, asking about the availability of an eye examination for their child and raising concerns regarding the child. Key barriers and enablers to the accessibility of primary eye care were identified through an analysis of qualitative information. Results: Of the 400 practices, only three (<1%) stated that they do not perform eye examinations on children. Fifty‐six practices (14%) stated that they would examine a child at any age, the remainder (n = 341, 85%) specifying a minimum age at which they would perform eye examinations on children. Lack of 'communication' from the child and 'equipment' were identified as barriers to accessing eye care for young children. Eye care for children with autism was enabled by factors related to adaptability and appointment time. Conclusion: Our results suggest that communication and a lack of appropriate equipment for examining children are potential barriers to accessing primary eye care. No clear barriers were identified for an older child with autism. Eye examinations are more accessible for older children in these scenarios (aged 5 with typical development and 13 years with autism) than younger children (aged 1 and 3 years old). While the UK General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) terms do not permit contract holders to exclude categories of patients from a GOS eye exam, our findings suggest this is taking place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Myopia prevalence has increased in the UK at age 10‐16y, but little is known about younger children. We hypothesise that if the 'myopia epidemic' is affecting young children, then there will be increasing rates of bilateral reduced unaided vision (V) at vision screenings of children 4–5 years of age. Methods: Retrospective anonymised data from computerised vision screening at age 4–5 years were analysed from serial cross‐sectional data. Refractive error is not assessed in UK vision screening, so vision was investigated. Data were only included from schools that screened every year from 2015/16 to 2021/22. The criterion used was unaided monocular logMAR (automated letter‐by‐letter scoring) vision >0.20 in both the right and left eyes, so as to maximise the chances of detecting bilateral, moderate myopia rather than amblyopia. Results: Anonymised raw data were obtained for 359,634 screening episodes from 2075 schools. Once schools were excluded where data were not available for every year and data were cleaned, the final database comprised 110,076 episodes. The proportion (percentage and 95% CI) failing the criterion from 2015/16 to 2021/22 were 7.6 (7.2–8.0), 8.5 (8.1–8.9), 7.5 (7.1–7.9), 7.8 (7.4–8.2), 8.7 (8.1–9.2), 8.5 (7.9–9.0) and 9.3 (8.8–9.7), respectively. The slope of the regression line showed a trend for increasing rates of reduced bilateral unaided vision, consistent with increasing frequency of myopia (p = 0.06). A decreasing linear trendline was noted for children 'Under Professional Care'. Conclusions: For children 4–5 years of age, there were signs of reduced vision over the last 7 years in England. Consideration of the most likely causes support the hypothesis of increasing myopia. The increase in screening failures highlights the importance of eye care in this young population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible summary People with learning disabilities who develop diabetes should be offered photograph tests of their eyes each year. People with learning disabilities who develop diabetes should have the same access to services as other people. This study looked at people with learning disabilities and diabetes to see whether they were getting the right tests for their eyes., In Bradford, most people with learning disabilities and diabetes have their eyes checked. Some people do not go to the appointment or find the tests difficult. A few people are not given an appointment at all., Changes should be made to help people with learning disabilities have their eyes checked, like allowing extra time and giving Easy Read information., Summary Equality of access to health care for adults with learning disability has been in the spotlight in the UK in recent years due to publication of several reports. Adults with learning disability are thought to account for a significant proportion of the diabetic population in the UK. A list of adults known to the learning disability health facilitation team, Bradford, Yorkshire, UK, was crossed checked against the list of adults known to be eligible for diabetic retinopathy screening held by general practice groups. Various criteria were devised by which the quality of the service and equality of access could be measured. Overall 91% had been offered diabetic retinal screening; however, 35% of patients did not have a recorded screening outcome. Adults with learning disability and diabetes represent a very small proportion of the total local diabetic population. National audit standards require that 80% of patients with diabetes undergo retinopathy screening, and currently, this standard is not being met for adults with learning disability. There are many barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening for a patient with learning disability, and suggestions for ways to improve equality of access are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Poor vision is associated with lower socioeconomic status, but less is known about its relationship to area deprivation. Methods The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study Norfolk Eye Study was a cross-sectional study of 8563 participants with completed eye examinations. Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (VA) was measured using standard protocols and low vision (LV) was defined as Snellen equivalent (VA) ?6/12 in the better eye. Uncorrected refractive error (URE) was defined as improvement of VA by 2 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution lines with pinhole. The lowest 5% of index of multiple deprivation rank was used to define the most deprived areas. The index of multiple deprivation is a composite measure using routine data from seven domains of deprivation to identify the most disadvantaged areas in England. Logistic regression was used to examine univariable and multivariable associations with LV. Results Ninety-six participants with missing data were excluded, leaving 8467 for analysis (98.9%). The mean age of the study group was 68.7 years (SD=8.1, range=48-92), with 55.1% women. LV was present in 263 participants (3.1%, 95% CI 2.7 to 3.5%). LV was associated with deprivation after adjusting for age, sex, education, social class and cataract surgery (OR=1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.6, p=0.03), but this effect was mitigated by additionally adjusting for URE (OR=1.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.4, p=0.09). Conclusions People with LV are more likely to live in the most deprived areas; this association was independent of socioeconomic status and partly mediated by URE. Targeting URE in deprived areas may reduce health inequalities associated with LV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]