Search

IntroductionPresbyopia, the leading cause of vision impairment globally, is common during working years. However, no trials have assessed presbyopia's impact on income.MethodsIn April 2017, we conducted a census among 59 Bangladesh villages to identify persons aged 35 to 65 years with presbyopia (presenting distance vision > = 6/12 bilaterally and correctable inability to see 6/13 at 40 cm with both eyes), who never had owned glasses. Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive immediate free reading glasses (intervention) or glasses delivered 8 months later (control). Visual demand of different jobs was stratified into three levels. Outcomes were between-group differences in the 8 month change in: self-reported monthly income (primary) and Near Vision Related Quality of Life (NVRQOL, secondary).ResultsAmong 10,884 census participants, 3,655 (33.6%) met vision criteria and 863 (23.6%) comprised a sample enriched for near vision-intensive jobs, but 39 (4.52%) could not be reached. All participants allocated to intervention (n = 423, 51.3%) and control (n = 401, 48.7%) received the appropriate intervention, and follow-up was available for 93.4% and 96.8% respectively. Groups were similar at baseline in all characteristics: mean age was 47 years, 50% were male, 35% literate, and about half engaged in "most near vision-intensive" occupations. Glasses wear at 8-month follow-up was 88.3% and 7.81% in intervention and control respectively. At baseline, both the intervention and control groups had a self-reported median monthly income of US$35.3. At endline, the median income for the intervention group was US$47.1 compared with US$35.3 for control, a difference of 33.4%. Predictors of greater income increase in multivariate models included intervention group allocation (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12, 1.88, P = 0.005), male sex (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.84, 3.16, P ConclusionProvision of reading glasses increases income in near vision-intensive occupations, and may facilitate return to work for those currently unemployed.

Background and aim Globally, 12.8 million children have vision impairment due to uncorrected refractive error (URE). In Mongolia, one in five children needs but do not have access to spectacles. This pilot cost-benefit analysis aims to estimate the net benefits of a children’s spectacles reimbursement scheme in Mongolia. Methods A willingness-to-pay (WTP) survey using the contingent valuation method was administered to rural and urban Mongolia respondents. The survey assessed WTP in additional annual taxes for any child with refractive error to be provided government-subsidised spectacles. Net benefits were then calculated based on mean WTP (i.e. benefit) and cost of spectacles. Results The survey recruited 50 respondents (mean age 40.2 ± 9.86 years; 78.0% women; 100% response rate) from rural and urban Mongolia. Mean WTP was US$24.00 ± 5.15 (95% CI US$22.55 to 25.35). The average cost of a pair of spectacles in Mongolia is US$15.00. Subtracting the average cost of spectacles from mean WTP yielded a mean positive net benefit of US$9.00. Conclusion A spectacle reimbursement scheme is potentially a cost-effective intervention to address childhood vision impairment due to URE in Mongolia. These preliminary findings support the proposal of the inclusion of children’s spectacles into existing Social Health Insurance. A much larger random sample could be employed in future research to increase the precision and generalisability of findings.

BackgroundThis study aims to understand the key factors influencing guardians' decisions when purchasing spectacles for their children in semi-urban and urban areas of Cross River State, Nigeria, where a spectacle cross-subsidisation scheme will be implemented.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted among all consecutive guardians visiting the Calabar (urban), Ugep, Ikom and Ogoja (semi-urban) public eye clinics in Cross River State, southern Nigeria, from August 1 to October 31 2019, and whose children had significant refractive errors (myopia ≤-0.50D, hyperopia ≥1.50D, astigmatism >0.75D) and received spectacles. Guardians were interviewed using a questionnaire which included i) close-ended questions on reasons guardians choose to purchase spectacles for their children in eye clinics, ii) guardians' perceptions of the quality and design of children's current spectacle, iii) factors most heavily influencing their choice of spectacles for children, and iv) open-ended questions to seek guardians' suggestions on how to improve the current spectacle range.ResultsAll 137 eligible guardians (67.2% women [n = 92]) who visited the selected eye clinics participated in the study (response rate = 100%), with 109 (79.6%) from semi-urban and 28 (20.4%) attending urban clinics. Guardians from both urban and semi-urban clinics prioritised frame design, quality, and material as the main factors affecting their decision when purchasing spectacles for their children. Female guardians and those with higher incomes were both 1.5 times more likely to emphasise frame quality when describing selection criteria for purchasing spectacles for their children than male guardians (p = 0.01) or guardians earning less (p = 0.03).ConclusionDesign, material, and frame quality are key factors influencing guardians when purchasing spectacles for their children in these setting and female guardians or those with higher income prioritise frame quality. This study could guide the planning and implementation of a novel cross-subsidisation scheme in Cross River State.