Manual for implementation or modification of child vision and hearing screening programmes:EUSCREEN

The euscreen study aimed to compare vision and hearing screening programmes for children in all EU states by using a cost-effectiveness model. The cost-effectiveness model predicts the most cost-effective and affordable way to screen children in each country, given the local circumstances. Representatives of countries in Europe were asked to provide detailed data on the following domains: demography, the general background of screening systems, existing screening systems, coverage/attendance, tests used, follow-up/diagnosis, treatment, benefits and adverse effects. Paediatric ophthalmologists, paediatric otolaryngologists, audiologists and professionals who organise and perform screening in each country were invited to participate in the study and report on the state of screening in their country. An extensive, detailed questionnaire was developed for that purpose. Screening programmes have been tested in the county of Cluj in Romania for vision, and in three counties in Albania for hearing screening. This manual for implementation or modification of child vision and hearing screening programmes was developed by detailed tracking, and from identified requisites, facilitators and barriers. The cost-effectiveness model and this manual for implementation will assist healthcare providers and policy makers worldwide in their decisions to introduce or modify vision and hearing screening programmes, and increase effectiveness, efficiency and equity of child healthcar

Manual for implementation or modification of child vision and hearing screening programmes:EUSCREEN

The euscreen study aimed to compare vision and hearing screening programmes for children in all EU states by using a cost-effectiveness model. The cost-effectiveness model predicts the most cost-effective and affordable way to screen children in each country, given the local circumstances. Representatives of countries in Europe were asked to provide detailed data on the following domains: demography, the general background of screening systems, existing screening systems, coverage/attendance, tests used, follow-up/diagnosis, treatment, benefits and adverse effects. Paediatric ophthalmologists, paediatric otolaryngologists, audiologists and professionals who organise and perform screening in each country were invited to participate in the study and report on the state of screening in their country. An extensive, detailed questionnaire was developed for that purpose. Screening programmes have been tested in the county of Cluj in Romania for vision, and in three counties in Albania for hearing screening. This manual for implementation or modification of child vision and hearing screening programmes was developed by detailed tracking, and from identified requisites, facilitators and barriers. The cost-effectiveness model and this manual for implementation will assist healthcare providers and policy makers worldwide in their decisions to introduce or modify vision and hearing screening programmes, and increase effectiveness, efficiency and equity of child healthcar

Manual for implementation or modification of child vision and hearing screening programmes:EUSCREEN

The euscreen study aimed to compare vision and hearing screening programmes for children in all EU states by using a cost-effectiveness model. The cost-effectiveness model predicts the most cost-effective and affordable way to screen children in each country, given the local circumstances. Representatives of countries in Europe were asked to provide detailed data on the following domains: demography, the general background of screening systems, existing screening systems, coverage/attendance, tests used, follow-up/diagnosis, treatment, benefits and adverse effects. Paediatric ophthalmologists, paediatric otolaryngologists, audiologists and professionals who organise and perform screening in each country were invited to participate in the study and report on the state of screening in their country. An extensive, detailed questionnaire was developed for that purpose. Screening programmes have been tested in the county of Cluj in Romania for vision, and in three counties in Albania for hearing screening. This manual for implementation or modification of child vision and hearing screening programmes was developed by detailed tracking, and from identified requisites, facilitators and barriers. The cost-effectiveness model and this manual for implementation will assist healthcare providers and policy makers worldwide in their decisions to introduce or modify vision and hearing screening programmes, and increase effectiveness, efficiency and equity of child healthcar

The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: a microsimulation study

Childhood vision screening programmes in Europe differ by age, frequency and location at which the child is screened, and by the professional who performs the test. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness for three countries with different health care structures. We developed a microsimulation model of amblyopia. The natural history parameters were calibrated to a Dutch observational study. Sensitivity, specificity, attendance, lost to follow-up and costs in the three countries were based on the EUSCREEN Survey. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using assumed utility loss for unilateral persistent amblyopia (1%) and bilateral visual impairment (8%). We calculated the cost-effectiveness of screening (with 3.5% annual discount) by visual acuity measurement at age 5 years or 4 and 5 years in the Netherlands by nurses in child healthcare centres, in England and Wales by orthoptists in schools and in Romania by urban kindergarten nurses. We compared screening at various ages and with various frequencies. Assuming an amblyopia prevalence of 36 per 1,000 children, the model predicted that 7.2 cases of persistent amblyopia were prevented in the Netherlands, 6.6 in England and Wales and 4.5 in Romania. The cost-effectiveness was €24,159, €19,981 and €23,589, per QALY gained respectively, compared with no screening. Costs/QALY was influenced most by assumed utility loss of unilateral persistent amblyopia. For all three countries, screening at age 5, or age 4 and 5 years were optimal. Despite differences in health care structure, vision screening by visual acuity measurement seemed cost-effective in all three countries

Environmental Enrichment Promotes Plasticity and Visual Acuity Recovery in Adult Monocular Amblyopic Rats

Loss of visual acuity caused by abnormal visual experience during development (amblyopia) is an untreatable pathology in adults. In some occasions, amblyopic patients loose vision in their better eye owing to accidents or illnesses. While this condition is relevant both for its clinical importance and because it represents a case in which binocular interactions in the visual cortex are suppressed, it has scarcely been studied in animal models. We investigated whether exposure to environmental enrichment (EE) is effective in triggering recovery of vision in adult amblyopic rats rendered monocular by optic nerve dissection in their normal eye. By employing both electrophysiological and behavioral assessments, we found a full recovery of visual acuity in enriched rats compared to controls reared in standard conditions. Moreover, we report that EE modulates the expression of GAD67 and BDNF. The non invasive nature of EE renders this paradigm promising for amblyopia therapy in adult monocular people

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes

Objective For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. Methods The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017–2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire. Results The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively. Conclusions Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency