Accessibility of high-street optometry premises within Tayside

Low, Liying; O'Colmain, Una; Ogston, Simon; MacEwen, C J

doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303471

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We previously reported unequal distribution of optometry practices within our region—there were fewer practices located in more deprived areas with poor geographical access compared with affluent areas with good geographical access. 17 Taken in context of the trend towards a higher rate of non-attendance at referral appointments among children from deprived backgrounds, these children are at an increased disadvantage—with poor local access to primary eye healthcare tied on with parental failure to bring them to appointments. In Scotland optometrists work under an enhanced General Ophthalmic Services contract whereby they provide primary eye healthcare services; it is therefore desirable that optometry premises are accessible to all population groups, in the same way that GP practices are.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vision screening in children: a retrospective study of social and demographic factors with regards to visual outcomes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAmblyopia and its risk factors have been demonstrated to be more common among children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We sought to investigate this association in a region with orthoptic-delivered screening and whole population coverage, and to also examine the association of the Health Plan Indicator (HPI) with screening outcome.MethodsScreening examination outcomes, postcodes and HPIs were extracted from the community child health database for every child who underwent preschool vision screening between March 2010 and February 2011 Tayside. We obtained the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation score for every child as a measure of area-based deprivation. We assessed the vulnerability/needs of the individual family through the HPI—‘Core’ (children and families receiving universal health visiting service), ‘Additional’ (receiving additional health/social support) and ‘Intensive’ (receiving high levels of support). The outcomes from follow-up examinations for those who failed screening were extracted from the orthoptic department database.Results4365 children were screened during the year 2010–2011 of whom 523 (11.9%) failed. The odds of children from the least deprived socioeconomic group passing the visual screening test was 1.4 times higher than those from the most deprived socioeconomic group (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.89, p=0.01). The odds of a child from a family assigned as ‘Intensive’ failing the preschool visual screening test was three times greater than the odds of a child from a family assigned as ‘Core’ (OR 3.59, 95% CI 1.6 to 7.8, p=0.001).ConclusionsWe found that children from the most deprived backgrounds and those from unstable homes were more likely to fail preschool vision screening.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Scotland optometrists work under an enhanced General Ophthalmic Services contract whereby they provide primary eye healthcare services; it is therefore desirable that optometry premises are accessible to all population groups, in the same way that GP practices are. 17 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vision screening in children: a retrospective study of social and demographic factors with regards to visual outcomes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, uptake of the screening programme is especially low among those living in deprived areas where access to the nearest eye care provider is limited. 6 7 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on the development of diabetic retinopathy: a population-based, cross-sectional and longitudinal study over 12 years

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo study the association between socioeconomic deprivation and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR).DesignPopulation-based, cross-sectional observational study and retrospective longitudinal analysis over 12 years.SettingPrimary care, East of Scotland.MethodsOutcome data from DR screening examinations (digital retinal photography) were collected from the Scottish regional diabetes electronic record from inception of database to December 2012. The overall Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) 2012 score for each patient was obtained using their residential postcode. Multiple binary logistic regression was used to analyse the relationship between overall SIMD score and prevalence of DR, adjusting for other variables: age, gender, glycated haemoglobin, cholesterol levels and duration of disease.Primary outcomeAny retinopathy (R1 and above) in either eye.ResultsA total of 1861 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) and 18 197 patients with type 2 DM were included in the study. Prevalence of DR in type 1 and type 2 DM were 56.3% and 25.5%, respectively. Increased prevalence of DR in type 1 DM was associated with higher overall SIMD score (p=0.002), with an OR for the most deprived relative to the least deprived of 2.40 (95% CI 1.36 to 4.27). In type 2 DM, the overall SIMD score was not significantly associated with increased prevalence of DR, with an OR for the most deprived relative to the least deprived of 0.85 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.02, p=0.07).ConclusionsSocioeconomic deprivation is associated with increased prevalence of DR in patients with type 1 DM and this occurs earlier. This highlights the need for targeted interventions to address inequalities in eye healthcare.

show abstract

“…We used the tool to assign every practice to a quintile from 1 to 5, with Quintile ‘1’ representing the most deprived postcodes in Scotland; for reasons of clarity, Quintiles 1 and 2 are referred to as the ‘most deprived’ and ‘second most deprived’, whereas Quintiles 4 and 5 are referred to as the ‘second least deprived’ and ‘least deprived’ in this study. Unlike a pre-existing study of practice distribution in Tayside, 7 the use of mean deprivation scores was avoided. The use of mean deprivation scores is problematic since they do not rank on a linear scale; a Data Zone with a score of 50, for example, is not twice as deprived as a zone with a score of 100.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the business model of optometric practice often incorporates spectacle sales, it has been suggested that a high number of practices are situated within affluent areas with under-representation at the other end of the socio-economic spectrum. 7 Although such a trend has been observed in Northern England, 4 the higher examination fee available in Scotland should foster a more equitable distribution of optometry practices across socio-economic groups, as the business model is less reliant on private eye-care and spectacle sales. 8 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution of optometric practices relative to deprivation index in Scotland

Legge

Strang

Löffler

2017

Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe UK National Health Service aims to provide universal availability of healthcare, and eye-care availability was a primary driver in the development of the Scottish General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) model. Accordingly, a relatively equal distribution of optometry practices across socio-economic areas is required. We examined practice distribution relative to deprivation.Methods672 practices were sampled from nine Health Boards within Scotland. Practices were assigned a deprivation ranking by referencing their postcode with the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) tool (Scottish Executive National Statistics: General Report. 2016).ResultsAveraged across Health Boards, the share of practices for the five deprivation quintiles was 25, 33, 18, 14 and 11% from most to least deprived area, respectively. Although there was some variation of relative practice distribution in individual Health Boards, 17 of the 45 regions (nine Health Boards, five quintiles) had a close balance between population and share of practices. There was no clear pattern of practice distribution as a function of deprivation rank. Analysis revealed good correlation between practice and population share for each Health Board, and for the combined data (R2 = 0.898, P < 0.01).ConclusionDistribution of optometry practices is relatively balanced across socio-economic areas, suggesting that differences in eye-examination uptake across social strata are unrelated to service availability.

show abstract

Accessibility of high-street optometry premises within Tayside

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

Vision screening in children: a retrospective study of social and demographic factors with regards to visual outcomes

Vision screening in children: a retrospective study of social and demographic factors with regards to visual outcomes

Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on the development of diabetic retinopathy: a population-based, cross-sectional and longitudinal study over 12 years

Distribution of optometric practices relative to deprivation index in Scotland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About