Search

Purpose/Background: Visual acuity (VA) screening in children primarily detects low VA and amblyopia between 3 and 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 modeling 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 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

Aims: Research on hypoglycaemia and quality of life (QoL) has focused mostly on severe hypoglycaemia and psychological outcomes, with less known about other aspects of hypoglycaemia (e.g., self-treated episodes) and impacts on other QoL domains (e.g., relationships). Therefore, we examined the impact of all aspects of hypoglycaemia on QoL in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). Methods: Participants completed an online survey, including assessment of hypoglycaemia-specific QoL (using the 12-item Hypoglycaemia Impact Profile). Mann-Whitney U tests examined differences in hypoglycaemia-specific QoL by hypoglycaemia frequency, severity, and awareness. Hierarchical linear regression examined associations with QoL. Results: Participants were 1028 adults with T1DM (M ± SD age: 47 ± 15 years; diabetes duration: 27 ± 16 years). Severe and self-treated hypoglycaemia and impaired awareness negatively impacted on overall QoL and several QoL domains, including leisure activities, physical health, ability to keep fit/be active, sleep, emotional well-being, spontaneity, independence, work/studies, and dietary freedom. Diabetes distress was most strongly associated with hypoglycaemia-specific QoL, followed by generic emotional well-being, fear of hypoglycaemia, and confidence in managing hypoglycaemia. Hypoglycaemia frequency and awareness were no longer significantly associated with QoL once psychological factors were considered. Conclusions: Hypoglycaemia negatively impacts on several QoL domains. Psychological factors supersede the effect of hypoglycaemia frequency and awareness in accounting for this negative impact.

Objective For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. Methods The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017-2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire. Results The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively. Conclusions Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.

Objective: For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. Methods: The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017–2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow- up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire. Results: The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N =42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N=43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively. Conclusions: Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for costeffectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.

Childhood vision screening programmes in Europe differ by age, frequency and location at which the child is screened, and by the professional who performs the test. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness for three countries with different health care structures. We developed a microsimulation model of amblyopia. The natural history parameters were calibrated to a Dutch observational study. Sensitivity, specificity, attendance, lost to follow-up and costs in the three countries were based on the EUSCREEN Survey. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using assumed utility loss for unilateral persistent amblyopia (1%) and bilateral visual impairment (8%). We calculated the cost-effectiveness of screening (with 3.5% annual discount) by visual acuity measurement at age 5 years or 4 and 5 years in the Netherlands by nurses in child healthcare centres, in England and Wales by orthoptists in schools and in Romania by urban kindergarten nurses. We compared screening at various ages and with various frequencies. Assuming an amblyopia prevalence of 36 per 1,000 children, the model predicted that 7.2 cases of persistent amblyopia were prevented in the Netherlands, 6.6 in England and Wales and 4.5 in Romania. The cost-effectiveness was €24,159, €19,981 and €23,589, per QALY gained respectively, compared with no screening. Costs/QALY was influenced most by assumed utility loss of unilateral persistent amblyopia. For all three countries, screening at age 5, or age 4 and 5 years were optimal. Despite differences in health care structure, vision screening by visual acuity measurement seemed cost-effective in all three countries.