0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Cost-effectiveness of School-Based Eye Examinations in Preschoolers Referred for Follow-up From Visual Screening

Eugene A. Lowry, MD1; Alejandra G. de Alba Campomanes, MD, MPH1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(6):658-664. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.0619.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Many preschool visual screening programs incorporate school-based comprehensive examinations, but the follow-up rates and cost-effectiveness of this approach are not well studied.

Objective  To determine the follow-up rates and cost-effectiveness of referral to community-based eye care professionals vs to a mobile eye examination unit (mobile follow-up) among preschool children with failed visual screening results.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This retrospective cohort cost-effectiveness study with decision analytic modeling and probabilistic sensitivity analysis included 3429 children in 37 public preschools in San Francisco, California, who underwent visual chart screening during the 2009-2012 academic years and 1524 children in the same schools who underwent autorefraction screening during the 2012-2013 academic year. One hundred seventy-five children who underwent visual chart screening were referred for community-based comprehensive eye examinations; 204 who underwent autorefractive screening were referred for preschool-based mobile follow-up. Data were collected from October 1, 2009, to May 29, 2013, and analyzed from June 30, 2013, to January 16, 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Cost-effectiveness of community-based vs mobile follow-up standardized for referral method.

Results  Of the 175 children referred for community-based follow-up (91 boys [52.0%]; 84 girls [48.0%]; mean [SD] age, 3.8 [0.7] years), 104 attended (59.4%). Of 204 children referred for mobile follow-up (89 boys [43.6%]; 115 girls [56.4%]; mean [SD] age, 4.1 [0.6] years), 112 attended (54.9%). Costs per case detected were $664 and $776, respectively. In univariate analysis, mobile follow-up was equally cost-effective if it increased the follow-up rate to 73% or if its costs were reduced by at least 27%. In multivariate analysis with Monte Carlo simulation, community-based follow-up was more cost-effective than mobile follow-up in 88% of simulated cases and had typical savings of $112 (95% CI, −$77 to $368) per case detected.

Conclusions and Relevance  Community-based eye care professionals may provide more cost-effective care than a mobile eye examination unit visiting the preschool among children with failed preschool-based visual screening.

Figures in this Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Decision Model for Cost-effectiveness Analysis

We compared data from the 2009-2012 academic years using visual chart screening and community-based follow-up (A) with data from the 2012-2013 academic year using autorefraction screening and preschool-based follow-up with mobile examinations (mobile follow-up [B]) and modeled autorefraction screening and community-based follow-up (C).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Threshold Analysis of Preschool-Based Follow-up

Cost per case with preschool-based follow-up using a mobile examination unit (mobile follow-up) across a range of follow-up rates is compared with the baseline cost per case of community-based follow-up at a rate of 59% shown. Mobile follow-up became equally cost-effective at a 73% follow-up rate.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.
Cost per Case of Amblyopia Detected

Central values represent baseline cost per case detected. Each variable is ranged to the lower and upper limit of a sensitivity range (described in the Methods section; values are given in the Table). Cost-effectiveness preference may change based on follow-up costs, but is not sensitive to expected variations in follow-up rate.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

549 Views
1 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();