Abstract:The large number of unreliable results at the first screening test could be caused by lack of collaboration. The orthoptic re-examination of children with unreliable results may be useful in reducing the amount of false positives.
“…1). The final analysis was performed on 36 articles that reported implementation in 18 countries from 5 continents (Table 2), comprising North America ( n = 2),19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 Asia ( n = 8),3, 21, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 Oceania ( n = 2),16, 17 Europe ( n = 4),6, 20, 47, 48, 49, 50 and Africa ( n = 2) 51, 52. Objectives of screening program were dissected based on target age groups according to their learning stages and target conditions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the fact that school enrollment age might have varied among countries (for example five years old in Australia and seven years old in Malaysia), children in similar learning stages might have experienced and been exposed to a similar environment. About 22% of the countries (Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States)6, 28, 32, 47 initiated vision screening during infancy (from one month old) and throughout the schooling period while 39% (Taiwan, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Egypt, Israel, and Oman)3, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 51, 52 applied screening at school-aged (age ranged from seven years old to 16 years old).Fig. 1PRISMA diagram of systematic review process.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the implementation of a mass pediatric vision screening program involves significant economic investment, further analysis was performed comparing the implementation approach with socioeconomic status (based on per capita gross national income in 2014) 53 . Approximately 46% of countries in the high-income category (5 countries out of 13 countries)6, 27, 32, 47, 50 included vision screening for infants, while the rest of the countries under high-income category covered preschool and school-aged children. High-income countries implemented diverse vision screening approaches comprising all types.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A vision screening can be performed either in the community or in a specialized clinical setting and is a common practice in preventive eyecare programs for both adults and children 3, 4, 5. In pediatric eyecare, the “mass screening” approach (usually for preschool and school-aged children)6, 7 competes with limited resources that may target more specific conditions such as retinopathy of prematurity 8 . Mass screening approaches offer broad coverage to all of the target population, while more opportunistic screening occurs in a clinical-based setting.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Objectives of existing pediatric vision screening programs varied with different age groups and conditions 3, 6, 16. Inconsistencies in implementation were commonly observed in the testing approach3, 17, 18, 19 and vision screeners 3, 20, 21.…”
PurposeIncorporating mass pediatric vision screening programs as part of a national agenda can be challenging. This review assessed the implementation strategy of the existing pediatric vision screening program.MethodsA search was performed on PubMed, EBSCO host MEDLINE Complete, and Scopus databases encompassing the past ten years for mass pediatric screening practice patterns that met the selection criteria regarding their objectives and implementation. Results were analyzed from 18 countries across five continents.ResultsEight countries (44%) offered screening for distance visual acuity only, where the majority of the countries (88%) used either Snellen or Tumbling E chart. High-income countries initiated screening earlier and applied a more comprehensive approach, targeting conditions other than reduced vision only, compared with middle-income countries. Chart-based testing was most commonly performed, with only three countries incorporating an instrument-based approach. Lack of eyecare and healthcare practitioners frequently necessitated the involvement of non-eyecare personnel (94%) as a vision screener including parent, trained staff, and nurse.ConclusionsImplementation of a vision screening program was diverse within countries preceded by limited resources issues. Lack of professional eyecare practitioners implied the need to engage a lay screener. The limitation of existing tests to detect a broader range of visual problems at affordable cost advocated the urgent need for the development of an inexpensive and comprehensive screening tool.
“…1). The final analysis was performed on 36 articles that reported implementation in 18 countries from 5 continents (Table 2), comprising North America ( n = 2),19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 Asia ( n = 8),3, 21, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 Oceania ( n = 2),16, 17 Europe ( n = 4),6, 20, 47, 48, 49, 50 and Africa ( n = 2) 51, 52. Objectives of screening program were dissected based on target age groups according to their learning stages and target conditions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the fact that school enrollment age might have varied among countries (for example five years old in Australia and seven years old in Malaysia), children in similar learning stages might have experienced and been exposed to a similar environment. About 22% of the countries (Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States)6, 28, 32, 47 initiated vision screening during infancy (from one month old) and throughout the schooling period while 39% (Taiwan, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Egypt, Israel, and Oman)3, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 51, 52 applied screening at school-aged (age ranged from seven years old to 16 years old).Fig. 1PRISMA diagram of systematic review process.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the implementation of a mass pediatric vision screening program involves significant economic investment, further analysis was performed comparing the implementation approach with socioeconomic status (based on per capita gross national income in 2014) 53 . Approximately 46% of countries in the high-income category (5 countries out of 13 countries)6, 27, 32, 47, 50 included vision screening for infants, while the rest of the countries under high-income category covered preschool and school-aged children. High-income countries implemented diverse vision screening approaches comprising all types.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A vision screening can be performed either in the community or in a specialized clinical setting and is a common practice in preventive eyecare programs for both adults and children 3, 4, 5. In pediatric eyecare, the “mass screening” approach (usually for preschool and school-aged children)6, 7 competes with limited resources that may target more specific conditions such as retinopathy of prematurity 8 . Mass screening approaches offer broad coverage to all of the target population, while more opportunistic screening occurs in a clinical-based setting.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Objectives of existing pediatric vision screening programs varied with different age groups and conditions 3, 6, 16. Inconsistencies in implementation were commonly observed in the testing approach3, 17, 18, 19 and vision screeners 3, 20, 21.…”
PurposeIncorporating mass pediatric vision screening programs as part of a national agenda can be challenging. This review assessed the implementation strategy of the existing pediatric vision screening program.MethodsA search was performed on PubMed, EBSCO host MEDLINE Complete, and Scopus databases encompassing the past ten years for mass pediatric screening practice patterns that met the selection criteria regarding their objectives and implementation. Results were analyzed from 18 countries across five continents.ResultsEight countries (44%) offered screening for distance visual acuity only, where the majority of the countries (88%) used either Snellen or Tumbling E chart. High-income countries initiated screening earlier and applied a more comprehensive approach, targeting conditions other than reduced vision only, compared with middle-income countries. Chart-based testing was most commonly performed, with only three countries incorporating an instrument-based approach. Lack of eyecare and healthcare practitioners frequently necessitated the involvement of non-eyecare personnel (94%) as a vision screener including parent, trained staff, and nurse.ConclusionsImplementation of a vision screening program was diverse within countries preceded by limited resources issues. Lack of professional eyecare practitioners implied the need to engage a lay screener. The limitation of existing tests to detect a broader range of visual problems at affordable cost advocated the urgent need for the development of an inexpensive and comprehensive screening tool.
Purpose:
The aim was to investigate universality of access, screening rate, and outcomes from the New South Wales (NSW) Statewide Eyesight Preschooler Screening (StEPS) over the period of 2009 to 2016.
Design:
Cross-sectional, observational study.
Methods:
The StEPS program provides vision screening to 4-year-old children residing in NSW and is administered within Local Health Districts (LHDs). Visual acuity (VA) was examined by trained lay and nurse screeners using HOTV logMAR. Children who had VA <6/9−2 were referred to local practitioners while those with VA <6/18 were referred to public hospital pediatric ophthalmic outpatient clinics where available. Activity data were collected by NSW Health and screening rates determined from population projections of 4-year-olds per LHD based on adjusted 2014 Census data. To determine factors impacting screening and referral rates, a random effects panel analysis was undertaken.
Results:
A total of 719,686 (96.4%) NSW 4-year-old children were offered StEPS vision screening between 2009 and 2016, 84% accepted and 564,825 children (75.6%) were screened. The screening rate increased from 67.3% in 2009 to 74.5% in 2016, with an 80% target reached for 3 consecutive years from 2013 to 2015. Of those screened, 19.2% were referred to an eye health professional or advised to have a vision retest in 12 months. This referral rate remained steady over the period studied, with little variation between metropolitan, and rural and regional LHDs.
Conclusions:
StEPS is an ideal service model for preschool vision screening providing coverage that is comparable to school-based screening programs and at an age likely to facilitate optimal treatment outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
