1
|
Asare AO, Maurer D, Wong AMF, Saunders N, Ungar WJ. Cost-effectiveness of Universal School- and Community-Based Vision Testing Strategies to Detect Amblyopia in Children in Ontario, Canada. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6:e2249384. [PMID: 36598785 PMCID: PMC9857467 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.49384] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Screening for amblyopia in primary care visits is recommended for young children, yet screening rates are poor. Although the prevalence of amblyopia is low (3%-5%) among young children, universal screening in schools and mandatory optometric examinations may improve vision care, but the cost-effectiveness of these vision testing strategies compared with the standard in primary care is unknown. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of universal school screening and mandated optometric examinations compared with standard care vision screening in primary care visits in Toronto, Canada, with the aim of detecting and facilitating treatment of amblyopia and amblyopia risk factors from the Ontario government's perspective. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An economic evaluation was conducted from July 2019 to May 2021 using a Markov model to compare 15-year costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between school screening and optometric examination compared with primary care screening in Toronto, Canada. Parameters were derived from published literature, the Ontario Schedule of Benefits and Fees, and the Kindergarten Vision Testing Program. A hypothetical cohort of 25 000 children aged 3 to 5 years was simulated. It was assumed that children in the cohort had irreversible vision impairment if not diagnosed by an optometrist. In addition, incremental costs and outcomes of 0 were adjusted to favor the reference strategy. Vision testing programs were designed to detect amblyopia and amblyopia risk factors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES For each strategy, the mean costs per child included the costs of screening, optometric examinations, and treatment. The mean health benefits (QALYs) gained were informed by the presence of vision impairment and the benefits of treatment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each alternative strategy relative to the standard primary care screening strategy as the additional cost required to achieve an additional QALY at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 Canadian dollars (CAD) ($37 690) per QALY gained. RESULTS School screening relative to primary care screening yielded cost savings of CAD $84.09 (95% CI, CAD $82.22-$85.95) (US $63.38 [95% CI, US $61.97-$64.78]) per child and an incremental gain of 0.0004 (95% CI, -0.0047 to 0.0055) QALYs per child. Optometric examinations relative to primary care screening yielded cost savings of CAD $74.47 (95% CI, CAD $72.90-$76.03) (US $56.13 [95% CI, $54.95-$57.30]) per child and an incremental gain of 0.0508 (95% CI, 0.0455-0.0561) QALYs per child. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD $50 000 (US $37 690) per QALY gained, school screening and optometric examinations were cost-effective relative to primary care screening in only 20% and 29% of iterations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, because amblyopia prevalence is low among young children and most children in the hypothetical cohort had healthy vision, universal school screening and optometric examinations were not cost-effective relative to primary care screening for detecting amblyopia in young children in Toronto, Canada. The mean added health benefits of school screening and optometric examinations compared with primary care screening did not warrant the resources used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Afua Oteng Asare
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Program of Neurosciences and Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- John Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Daphne Maurer
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Agnes M. F. Wong
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Program of Neurosciences and Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Natasha Saunders
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Program of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Wendy J. Ungar
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Program of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Asare AO, Wong AMF, Maurer D, Kulandaivelu Y, Saunders N, Ungar WJ. Economic evaluations of vision screening to detect amblyopia and refractive errors in children: a systematic review. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH = REVUE CANADIENNE DE SANTE PUBLIQUE 2022; 113:297-311. [PMID: 34755325 PMCID: PMC8577413 DOI: 10.17269/s41997-021-00572-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2021] [Accepted: 08/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To synthesize and appraise economic evaluations of vision screening to detect vision impairment in children. METHODS Literature searches were conducted on seven electronic databases, grey literature, and websites of agencies conducting health technology assessments. Studies were included if they (1) were full, comparative economic evaluations that used cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequence, or cost-analysis methods; (2) described screening services designed to detect amblyopia, strabismus, or uncorrected refractive errors in children under 6 years of age; and (3) published after 1994. High-quality studies were synthesized descriptively. Currencies were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars. Quality was assessed with the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ). RESULTS Vision screening services were conducted by paid staff, volunteers, or health care professionals in schools or clinics. Thirteen studies were published from five countries: China (n = 1), United States (n = 4), United Kingdom (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), and Germany (n = 6). Analytical techniques included cost-utility/cost-effectiveness combination (n = 2), cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 7), cost-utility analysis (n = 1), cost-benefit analysis (n = 1), cost-consequence analysis (n = 1), and cost analysis (n = 1). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from C$1,056 to C$151,274 per additional case detected/prevented and from C$9,429 to C$30,254,703 per additional QALY gained, depending on the type of screening service and comparator. Six studies were determined to be of high quality. CONCLUSION Vision screening to detect amblyopia for young children may be cost-effective compared with no screening if amblyopia reduced quality of life. Studies varied significantly in the type of screening services and comparators used. Methodological limitations were common. Future studies would be aided immensely by prospective studies on the impact of amblyopia on the health-related quality of life of young children and guidelines on the effective conduct of vision screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Afua O Asare
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
- ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Agnes M F Wong
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Daphne Maurer
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Yalinie Kulandaivelu
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Natasha Saunders
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
- ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Wendy J Ungar
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
- ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada.
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, 686 Bay St., Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the cost-effectiveness of 5 methods of screening for untreated amblyopia in kindergarten from a third-party-payer perspective: A) uncorrected monocular visual acuity testing with pass threshold > or =0.5 (20/40) and < or =1 line difference between eyes; B) same as A, but pass threshold > or =0.6 (20/32); C) same as A, plus cover tests and examination of eye motility and head posture; D) same as C, but pass threshold > or =0.6 (20/32); and E) refractive screening without cycloplegia using the Nikon Retinomax autorefractor. METHODS A decision-analytic model was used with a time horizon until diagnostic examination. According to the model, all 3-year-old children were screened in kindergarten with 1 of the screening methods. Children with positive screening results were referred to an ophthalmologist for diagnostic examination. Children with inconclusive screening results were either referred to an ophthalmologist directly (option 1) or rescreened by the same method after 1 year and referred to an ophthalmologist if rescreening was positive or inconclusive (option 2). Screening test characteristics and costs were estimated on the basis of a field study in which 1180 3-year-old children were examined by orthoptists in 121 German kindergartens. RESULTS Compared with methods A option 1 (A-1), B-1, C-1, C-2, E-1, and E-2, there was at least 1 other method that was both less costly and more effective. The average costs per detected case were lowest for method A-2 (878 Euro), followed by methods B-2 (886 Euro), D-2 (908 Euro), and D-1 (965 Euro). When these methods were compared with each other, the additional costs per extra case detected were 1058 Euro (B-2 vs A-2), 1359 Euro (D-2 vs B-2), and 13 448 Euro (D-1 vs D-2). CONCLUSIONS Monocular visual acuity screening with rescreening of inconclusive results had a favorable cost-effectiveness. By adding additional test items, few more cases could be detected. Because of a great proportion of false-negative, false-positive, and inconclusive results, refractive screening was less effective with an unfavorable cost-effectiveness.
Collapse
|