Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial

Abstract

PurposeTo determine the incremental cost‐effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p‐EVES) devices compared with optical low vision aids (LVAs), for improving near vision visual function, quality of life and well‐being of people with a visual impairment.MethodsAn AB/BA randomized crossover trial design was used. Eighty‐two participants completed the study. Participants were current users of optical LVAs who had not tried a p‐EVES device before and had a stable visual impairment. The trial intervention was the addition of a p‐EVES device to the participant's existing optical LVA(s) for 2 months, and the control intervention was optical LVA use only, for 2 months. Cost‐effectiveness and cost‐utility analyses were conducted from a societal perspective.ResultsThe mean cost of the p‐EVES intervention was £448. Carer costs were £30 (4.46 hr) less for the p‐EVES intervention compared with the LVA only control. The mean difference in total costs was £417. Bootstrapping gave an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £736 (95% CI £481 to £1525) for a 7% improvement in near vision visual function. Cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) ranged from £56 991 (lower 95% CI = £19 801) to £66 490 (lower 95% CI = £23 055). Sensitivity analysis varying the commercial price of the p‐EVES device reduced ICERs by up to 75%, with cost per QALYs falling below £30 000.ConclusionPortable electronic vision enhancement system (p‐EVES) devices are likely to be a cost‐effective use of healthcare resources for improving near vision visual function, but this does not translate into cost‐effective improvements in quality of life, capability or well‐being.

Utilization and Abandonment of Low Vision Devices Prescribed on a Mobile Clinic

“…In the U.K., research has found portable electronic magnifiers to be the device of choice for leisure reading in experienced optical magnifier users, and a cost-effective supplement to optical devices. 10,11 Together, these findings support the importance of electronic magnifier provision, even in a setting with limited financing.…”

Current Perspectives in Low Vision and its Management

“…Some of these devices are Optelec Compact+, Optelec Compact 4HD, Schweizere Mag43, and Eschenbach Mobilux Digital, Aumed -EYE-C. In a prospective randomized crossover study, portable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices were found to be cost-effective for improving near vision visual function [22].…”

Dispositivo óptico vestível para o auxílio de deficientes visuais na sala de aula

“…Entre esses dispositivos estão o Optelec Compact+, Optelec Compact 4HD, Schweizer eMAG 43 e Eschenbach Mobilux Digital sendo exemplos de p-EVES (portable electronic vision enhancement systems), sistemas eletrônicos de aprimoramento de visão portáteis (Wittich, Jarry, Morrice, & Johnson, 2018;Taylor et al, 2017). Porém, a maioria desses dispositivos ainda apresenta alto custo, com dispositivos que chegam até £545, o que dificulta a sua aquisição pelos pacientes (Bray et al, 2017). Apesar da diversidade de equipamentos disponíveis, ainda há uma carência de evidências que comprovem a superioridade de algum Research, Society and Development, v. 9, n. 9, e930997623, 2020 (CC BY 4.0) | ISSN 2525-3409 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v9i9.7623 5 dispositivo óptico sobre os demais.…”