Patient Perspectives on Acquiring Spectacles: A Cambodian Experience

Purpose: To assess the perspectives of patients who acquired spectacles from an eye unit/vision center in Cambodia. Design: A sample (n = 62) of patients was selected across 4 provinces: Prey Veng, Siem Reap, Battambang, and Takeo. Methods: The Patient Spectacle Satisfaction Survey covering demographic and semistructured questions regarding patient satisfaction, style, and costs incurred was used to collect data. Information was transcribed and translated into English and analyzed by thematic coding using NVivo. Results: Although there were more women seeking eye health care treatment, there was no significant age difference. Patient satisfaction levels were high although the patients had to pay for transportation, registration, and the glasses themselves. A total of 60 patients (96.7%) stated they would recommend the refractive service center to others. Despite a high level of awareness of eye disease such as cataract, only 2 in 10 people could accurately identify cataract as a major cause of poor vision or blindness. Most of the people (52%) blamed bad vision or blindness on dust or other foreign objects getting into the eye, old age (31%), or poor hygiene (16%). Conclusions: Most people will pay eye care costs once barriers to seeking treatment have been broken via education and encouragement. Satisfaction of wearing spectacles was associated with improved vision; style, color, and fit of the spectacles; and protection from sunlight and dust. The proximity of and easy access to health facilities influenced patient desire to seek treatment

Population-based cross-sectional study of barriers to utilisation of refraction services in South India: Rapid Assessment of Refractive Errors (RARE) Study

AIM: To assess the barriers to the uptake of refraction services in the age group of 15-49 years in rural Andhra Pradesh, India. METHODS: A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted using cluster random sampling to enumerate 3300 individuals from 55 clusters. A validated questionnaire was used to elicit information on barriers to utilisation of services among individuals with uncorrected refractive error (presenting visual acuity 35 years with binocular distance visual acuity of ≥6/12). RESULTS: 3095 (94%) were available for examination. Those with uncorrected refractive errors cited affordability as the main barrier to the uptake of eye-care services. Among people with uncorrected presbyopia, lack of 'felt need' was the leading barrier. CONCLUSION: The barriers that were 'relatively easy to change' were reported by those with uncorrected refractive errors in contrast to 'difficult to change' barriers reported by those with uncorrected presbyopia. Together, the data on prevalence and an understanding of the barriers for the uptake of services are critical to the planning of refractive error services

Barriers to the Uptake of Cataract Surgery and Eye Care After Community Outreach Screening in Takeo Province, Cambodia

Purpose: To assess the barriers influencing eye healthcare seeking be-havior after community outreach screening. Design: A concurrent mixed methods study. Methods: A total of 469 patients screened during the previous 12 months were followed up, of which 354 (75%) from 5 districts were in-terviewed in person, using a semi-structured questionnaire, in-depth in-terviews (n = 11), and 16 focus groups (n = 71). SPSS and NVivo were used to analyze response frequency and identify themes. Results: Of the respondents, 98% (350/354) reported they were told they had an eye problem, with 295 individuals (83%) told to attend CARITAS Takeo Eye Hospital (CTEH) and 55 to have their eyes checked at Kiri Vong Vision Centre. Of those 68.9% (244/354) who reported seeking treatment, only 7.4% (18/244) reported they attended CTEH, 54% (n = 132) attended a “local pharmacy,” 31.6% (n = 77) “self-treated at home,” 11% (n = 27) reported “using steam from boiling rice,” and 10.7% (n = 26) attended a “traditional healer.” Of those who reported reasons for “not attending,” responses included “no time” (47.8%, 86/180), “no one to accompany” (21.7%, n = 39), “fear of losing sight” (17.8%, n = 32), “cannot afford to travel” (16.1%, n = 29), and “eye problem is not serious enough” (15.6%, n = 28). Follow-up of patient records identified that 128 individuals (79 females) attended eye care services. Conclusions: Socioeconomic factors, personal concerns, and the use of local cultural remedies were reasons for not seeking eye hospital treatment. An integrated community approach to improve awareness and uptake of appropriate treatment is recommended

The prevalence and causes of vision loss in Indigenous Australians: the National Indigenous Eye Health Survey

Aim: To determine the prevalence and causes of vision loss in Indigenous Australians. Design, setting and participants: A national, stratified, random cluster sample was drawn from 30 communities across Australia that each included about 300 Indigenous people of all ages. A sample of non-Indigenous adults aged 40 years was also tested at several remote sites for comparison. Participants were examined using a standardised protocol that included a questionnaire (self-administered or completed with the help of field staff), visual acuity (VA) testing on presentation and after correction, visual field testing, trachoma grading, and fundus and lens photography. The data were collected in 2008. Main outcome measures: VA; prevalence of low vision and blindness; causes of vision loss; rates of vision loss in Indigenous compared with non-Indigenous adults. Results: 1694Indigenouschildrenand1189Indigenousadultswereexamined, representing recruitment rates of 84% for children aged 5–15 years and 72% for adults aged 40 years. Rates of low vision (VA \u3c 6/12 to 6/60) were 1.5% (95% CI, 0.9%–2.1%) in children and 9.4% (95% CI, 7.8%–11.1%) in adults. Rates of blindness (VA \u3c 6/60) were 0.2% (95% CI, 0.04%–0.5%) in children and 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1%–2.6%) in adults. The principal cause of low vision in both adults and children was refractive error. The principal causes of blindness in adults were cataract, refractive error and optic atrophy. Relative risks (RRs) of vision loss and blindness in Indigenous adults compared with adults in the mainstream Australian population were 2.8 and 6.2, respectively. By contrast, RRs of vision loss and blindness in Indigenous children compared with mainstream children were 0.2 and 0.6, respectively. Conclusion: Many causes of vision loss in our sample were readily avoidable. Better allocation of services and resources is required to give all Australians equal access to eye health services

Prevalence and Causes of Vision Loss in High-Income Countries and in Eastern and Central Europe in 2015: Magnitude, Temporal Trends, and Projections

Background: Within a surveillance of the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in high-income regions and Central/Eastern Europe, we update figures through 2015 and forecast expected values in 2020. Methods: Based on a systematic review of medical literature, prevalence of blindness, moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI), mild vision impairment and presbyopia were estimated for 1990, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Results: Age-standardized prevalence of blindness and MSVI for all ages decreased from 1990 to 2015 from 0.26% (0.10-0.46) to 0.15% (0.06-0.26), and from 1.74% (0.76-2.94) to 1.27% (0.55-2.17), respectively. In 2015, the number of individuals affected by blindness, MSVI and mild vision impairment ranged from 70,000, 630,000 and 610,000, respectively, in Australasia to 980,000, 7.46 million and 7.25 million, respectively, in North America and 1.16 million, 9.61 million and 9.47 million in Western Europe. In 2015, cataract was the most common cause for blindness, followed by age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, and cornea-related disorders, with declining burden from cataract and AMD over time. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of MSVI. Conclusions: While continuing to advance control of cataract and AMD as the leading causes of blindness remains a high priority, overcoming barriers to uptake of refractive error services would address approximately half of the MSVI burden. New data on burden of presbyopia identify this entity as an important public health problem in this population. Additional research on better treatments, better implementation with existing tools and ongoing surveillance of the problem are needed

Improving access to low vision services

Our recent survey found that low vision services were often inaccessible to large numbers of people in low- and middle-income countries. We suggest three areas for action: human resources, sustainability of services, and advocacy. However, it is important to keep in mind that these strategies must be adapted to suit your situation

Uncorrected refractive errors, presbyopia and spectacle coverage: results from a rapid assessment of refractive error survey

Purpose: To investigate the prevalence of uncorrected refractive errors, presbyopia and spectacle coverage in subjects aged 15-50 years using rapid assessment methodology in the Mahabubnagar district of Andhra Pradesh, India. Methods: A population-based cross sectional study was conducted using cluster random sampling to enumerate 3,300 subjects from 55 clusters. Unaided, aided and pinhole visual acuity was assessed using a LogMAR chart at a distance of 4 meters. Near vision was assessed using N notation chart. Uncorrected refractive error was defined as presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 but improving to at least 6/12 or better on using a pinhole. Presbyopia is defined as binocular near vision worse than N8 in subjects aged more than 35 years with binocular distance visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Results: Of the 3,300 subjects enumerated from 55 clusters, 3,203 (97%) subjects were available for examination. Of these, 1,496 (46.7%) were females and 930 (29%) were ≥ 40 years. Age and gender adjusted prevalence of uncorrected refractive errors causing visual impairment in the better eye was 2.7% (95% CI, 2.1-3.2%). Presbyopia was present in 690 (63.7%, 95% CI, 60.8-66.6%) subjects aged over 35 years. Spectacle coverage for refractive error was 29% and for presbyopia it was 19%. Conclusions: There is a large unmet need for refractive correction in this area in India. Rapid assessment methods are an effective means of assessing the need for services and the impact of models of care

Rapid assessment methods in eye care: An overview

Reliable information is required for the planning and management of eye care services. While classical research methods provide reliable estimates, they are prohibitively expensive and resource intensive. Rapid assessment (RA) methods are indispensable tools in situations where data are needed quickly and where time- or cost-related factors prohibit the use of classical epidemiological surveys. These methods have been developed and field tested, and can be applied across almost the entire gamut of health care. The 1990s witnessed the emergence of RA methods in eye care for cataract, onchocerciasis, and trachoma and, more recently, the main causes of avoidable blindness and visual impairment. The important features of RA methods include the use of local resources, simplified sampling methodology, and a simple examination protocol/data collection method that can be performed by locally available personnel. The analysis is quick and easy to interpret. The entire process is inexpensive, so the survey may be repeated once every 5-10 years to assess the changing trends in disease burden. RA survey methods are typically linked with an intervention. This article provides an overview of the RA methods commonly used in eye care, and emphasizes the selection of appropriate methods based on the local need and context

Referral to low vision services by optometrists

Background: Only a small percentage of people with low vision in Australia receive comprehensive low vision rehabilitation services. In an attempt to examine reasons for this under-utilisation of low vision services, the referral criteria used by Australian ophthalmologists and optometrists were investigated. This paper reports the results for optometric referrals; the results for the ophthalmological referrals have been reported elsewhere. \ud Method: A survey was sent to a random sample of 800 optometrists in Australia. Information requested included the vision loss criteria used for referral of patients to services for visually impaired people, the frequency of prescription of low vision devices (LVDs), frequency of referrals and perceptions of the availability and quality of low vision services. \ud Results: The response rate was 36 per cent. Optometrists reported that only 4.7 per cent of their patients have low vision. Optometrists frequently prescribe LVDs but the majority infrequently refer patients to low vision or rehabilitation services. The rate of referral is influenced by their referral criterion and the perceived availability and quality of low vision services. \ud Conclusions: Optometrists do not manage many patients with low vision because the patients are usually referred to ophthalmologists for management of the underlying eye disease. However, many optometrists could adopt a lesser degree of vision loss as their referral criteria for low vision services and encourage ophthalmologists to do the same. With improved communication between the eye care practitioners and low vision services, patients will be referred to low vision services earlier, before vision loss severely affects their daily lives