Literature DB >> 12917617

A cost-benefit analysis of vision screening methods for preschoolers and school-age children.

Vijay N Joish1, Daniel C Malone, Joseph M Miller.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine costs and benefits of visual acuity screening (VAS) or photoscreening (PS) in children.
METHODS: A societal-perspective, decision-analytic model compared VAS and PS conducted in three age groups: children 6 to 18 months, 3 to 4 years, and 7 to 8 years old. Literature estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and prevalence were used. Cost estimates and referral rates for surgical treatment were derived from a managed care database and the United States Social Security Administration.
RESULTS: All the benefit-to-cost ratios exceeded 1.0, meaning that all screening programs studied had benefits that exceeded the cost of screening. The total net benefit was highest for PS in children of 3 to 4 years of age (19,412 US dollars) and the least for VAS in children 7 to 8 years of age (15,179 US dollars). The benefit-to-cost ratio was highest for the VAS in children 3 to 4 years of age (162 US dollars) and least for PS in infants 6 to 18 month old (140 US dollars). Sensitivity of the PS instrument and VAS charts were the most influential variables in determining the most cost-beneficial program.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the best available data, the net benefit of PS in 3 to 4 year old preschool children is greater than VAS in children 7 to 8 years of age, PS in toddlers, and VAS in children 3 to 4 years of age.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12917617     DOI: 10.1016/s1091-8531(03)00116-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J AAPOS        ISSN: 1091-8531            Impact factor:   1.220


  8 in total

1.  Comparison of photorefraction, autorefractometry and retinoscopy in children.

Authors:  Goktug Demirci; Banu Arslan; Mustafa Özsütçü; Mustafa Eliaçık; Gokhan Gulkilik
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  A double dissociation of the acuity and crowding limits to letter identification, and the promise of improved visual screening.

Authors:  Shuang Song; Dennis M Levi; Denis G Pelli
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-05-05       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  The potential cost-effectiveness of amblyopia screening programs.

Authors:  David B Rein; John S Wittenborn; Xinzhi Zhang; Michael Song; Jinan B Saaddine
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 1.402

4.  Assessment of a modification of Brückner's test as a screening modality for anisometropia and strabismus.

Authors:  Abadan Khan Amitava; D Kewlani; Z Khan; A Razzak
Journal:  Oman J Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-09

Review 5.  Comparison of the pediatric vision screening program in 18 countries across five continents.

Authors:  Ai-Hong Chen; Nurul Farhana Abu Bakar; Patricia Arthur
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-09-03

6.  Agreement and diagnostic accuracy of vision screening in preschool children between vision technicians and spot vision screener.

Authors:  Neha Misra; Rohit C Khanna; Asha Latha Mettla; Srinivas Marmamula; Jill E Keeffe
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.848

Review 7.  Scope and costs of autorefraction and photoscreening for childhood amblyopia-a systematic narrative review in relation to the EUSCREEN project data.

Authors:  Anna M Horwood; Helen J Griffiths; Jill Carlton; Paolo Mazzone; Arinder Channa; Mandy Nordmann; Huibert J Simonsz
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 3.775

8.  Economic evaluations of vision screening to detect amblyopia and refractive errors in children: a systematic review.

Authors:  Afua O Asare; Agnes M F Wong; Daphne Maurer; Yalinie Kulandaivelu; Natasha Saunders; Wendy J Ungar
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2021-11-09
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.