Sampling methodology and site selection in the National Eye Health Survey: an Australian population-based prevalence study

Underserved groups could be better considered within population-based eye health surveys: a methodological study

OBJECTIVES

In pursuit of health equity, the World Health Organization has recently called for more extensive monitoring of inequalities in eye health. Population-based eye health surveys can provide this information, but whether underserved groups are considered in the design, implementation, and reporting of surveys is unknown. We conducted a systematic methodological review of surveys published since 2000 to examine how many population-based eye health surveys have considered underserved groups in their design, implementation, or reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified all population-based cross-sectional surveys reporting the prevalence of objectively measured vision impairment or blindness. Using the PROGRESS + framework to identify underserved groups, we assessed whether each study considered underserved groups within 15 items across the rationale, sampling or recruitment methods, or the reporting of participation and prevalence rates.

RESULTS

388 eye health surveys were included in this review. Few studies prospectively considered underserved groups during study planning or implementation, for example within their sample size calculations (n = 5, ∼1%) or recruitment strategies (n = 70, 18%). The most common way that studies considered underserved groups was in the reporting of prevalence estimates (n = 374, 96%). We observed a modest increase in the number of distinct PROGRESS + factors considered by a publication over the study period. Gender/sex was considered within at least one item by 95% (n = 367) of studies. Forty-three percent (n = 166) of included studies were conducted primarily on underserved population groups, particularly for subnational studies of people living in rural areas, and we identified examples of robust population-based studies in socially excluded groups.

CONCLUSION

More effort is needed to improve the design, implementation, and reporting of surveys to monitor inequality and promote equity in eye health. Ideally, national-level monitoring of vision impairment and service coverage would be supplemented with smaller-scale studies to understand the disparities experienced by the most underserved groups.

Vision Bus Aotearoa: a platform for strengthening eye health teaching, research and community partnership

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Vision Bus Aotearoa is a fully equipped mobile eye health clinic designed to provide a novel platform for undergraduate optometry clinical training, community eye health research and deliver services to underserved communities.

BACKGROUND

Aotearoa New Zealand has inequitable access to eye health care. Vision Bus Aotearoa aims to work in partnership with communities to provide comprehensive mobile primary eye health care services while training optometry students, and integrating community eye health research.

METHODS

A description is provided of the governance model which has been involved throughout the project.

RESULTS

The process of vehicle manufacture, clinical set-up, funding models and service delivery are described. The aims of the project are detailed in terms of optometry teaching, clinical services in partnership with communities, and research integration and implementation.

CONCLUSION

Vision Bus Aotearoa represents a valuable opportunity to deliver mobile eye health care to historically underserved communities, enhance undergraduate optometry teaching and to provide a unique platform for community eye health research.

Estimating malignancy risk of melanocytic choroidal tumours detected in the Australian National Eye Health Survey

Clinical relevance: The malignant potential of choroidal melanocytic tumours detected incidentally in the community is thought to be low, but this has not been assessed using a validated screening tool. An accurate characterisation of the malignant potential of these lesions has implications for resource allocation, service provision, education, and training.Background: MOLES (Mushroom shape, Orange Pigment, Large size, Enlargement, and Subretinal fluid) categorises tumours as 'common naevus', 'low-risk naevus', 'high-risk naevus', and 'probable melanoma'. The MOLES system recommends that patients with common naevi (score = 0) undergo review by a community optometrist every two years, ideally with sequential colour photography. For the remaining patients (score ≥ 1), specialist imaging and assessment are recommended, with referral triaged as non-urgent for patients with low-risk (score = 1) or high-risk naevi (score = 2) and urgent for patients with probable melanoma (score > 2).Methods: Lesions flagged as choroidal melanocytic tumours on retinal photographs taken during the Australian National Eye Health Survey were retrospectively analysed by an ocular oncologist. Each lesion was assigned a MOLES score and categorised as common, low-risk, high-risk or probable melanoma.Results: Seventy-seven choroidal naevi were identified. Seventy-five (97%) of the choroidal naevi were categorised as common naevi, with a MOLES score of 0. Two (3%) choroidal naevi had a score of 1 and diagnosed as low-risk naevi due to their size. No naevi had a score of 2 or more.Conclusion: All choroidal naevi detected in this nationally representative population survey were innocuous. This suggests that the vast majority of choroidal melanocytic tumours that are incidentally detected in Australia can be managed in primary eye care settings without the need for specialist referral. MOLES provides a simple evidence-based method for choroidal naevi assessment in primary care.

Prevalence and associations of non-retinopathy ocular conditions among older Australians with self-reported diabetes: The National Eye Health Survey

AIM

To determine the prevalence and associations of non-retinopathy ocular conditions among older Australian adults with diabetes.

METHODS

Multistage random-cluster sampling was used to select 3098 non-indigenous Australians aged 50y or older (46.4% male) and 1738 indigenous Australians aged 40y or older (41.1% male) from all levels of geographic remoteness in Australia. Participants underwent a standardised questionnaire to ascertain diabetes history, and a clinical examination to identify eye disease. We determined the prevalence of uncorrected refractive error, visually significant cataract, cataract surgery, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, retinal vein occlusion and epiretinal membrane among those with and without self-reported diabetes.

RESULTS

Participants with self-reported diabetes had a higher prevalence of cataract surgery than those without diabetes (28.8% vs 16.9%, OR 1.78, 95%CI: 1.35-2.34 among non-indigenous Australians, and 11.3% vs 5.2%, OR 1.62, 95%CI: 1.22-2.14 among indigenous Australians). Diabetic retinopathy (DR) increased the odds of cataract surgery among self-reported diabetic indigenous and non-indigenous Australians (OR 1.89, P=0.004 and OR 2.33, P<0.001 respectively). Having diabetes for ≥20y and having vision-threatening DR increased the odds of cataract surgery among indigenous Australians with diabetes (OR 3.73, P=0.001 and 7.58, P<0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Most non-retinopathy ocular conditions are not associated with self-reported diabetes. However, to account for Australia's worsening diabetes epidemic, interventions to reduce the impact of diabetes-related blindness should include increased cataract surgery services.

Prevalence, associations and characteristics of severe uncorrected refractive error in the Australian National Eye Health Survey

IMPORTANCE

In Australia, nationally representative data of the burden and associations of severe uncorrected refractive error are scarce.

BACKGROUND

To report the prevalence and characteristics of severe uncorrected refractive error in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

DESIGN

Population-based cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 3098 non-Indigenous Australians aged 50 to 98 and 1738 Indigenous Australians aged 40 to 92 living in 30 randomly selected Australian sites were examined.

METHODS

Severe uncorrected refractive error was defined as an improvement of ≥2 lines on the logMAR chart in one or both eyes in participants with a presenting visual acuity <6/12.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Severe uncorrected refractive error RESULTS: Prevalence of severe uncorrected refractive error was 11.0% (95% confidence interval 9.3-13.0) in non-Indigenous and 14.5% (12.5-16.7) in Indigenous Australians. Eighty-two percent of non-Indigenous and 77% of Indigenous participants had a spherical equivalent refraction between -2.00D and +2.00D. Indigenous Australians who were older (odds ratio [OR] for 70-79 years vs 40-49 years = 3.59), resided in outer regional areas (OR = 1.78) and did not have an eye examination in the previous 2-years (OR = 1.50) were associated with higher odds of severe uncorrected refractive error. Geographical remoteness (OR = .68 for inner regional), male gender (OR = 1.30), older age (OR for 70-79 years vs 50-59 years = 1.51) and failure to have an eye examination in the previous 2-years (OR = 2.06) were associated with severe uncorrected refractive error among non-Indigenous participants.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Increased public awareness of the importance of regular optometric examinations may be required in groups at high risk of severe uncorrected refractive error.

The prevalence of visually significant cataract in the Australian National Eye Health Survey

PURPOSE

To describe the prevalence of visually significant cataract in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

METHODS

A total of 3098 non-Indigenous Australians aged 50 years and over and 1738 Indigenous Australians aged 40 years and over, residing in 30 randomly selected Australian sites, were examined as part of the population-based National Eye Health Survey (NEHS). For those with visual acuity worse than 6/12, photos of the anterior and posterior segment were taken with a nonmydriatic fundus camera and assessed for cataract. Visually significant cataract was assigned in eyes with best-corrected visual acuity worse than 6/12 and cataract that was determined to be the primary cause of vision loss in that eye.

RESULTS

In total, 99.2% (4797/4836) participants had complete data for visual acuity and cataract assessment. The overall weighted prevalence of visually significant cataract was 2.7% (95% CI: 2.0, 3.5) in non-Indigenous Australians and 4.3% (95% CI: 3.1, 5.9) among Indigenous Australians. After adjusting for age and gender, the odds of visually significant cataract were almost three times higher among Indigenous participants compared to non-Indigenous participants (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.95, 95% CI: 2.03, 4.29). Only 54.8% of non-Indigenous Australians and 38.9% of Indigenous Australians with visually significant cataract self-reported a known history of cataract.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that continued efforts are required to build sustainable cataract surgery services within Indigenous communities. Furthermore, given the significant ageing of the Australian population, maintaining high cataract surgery rates amongst the non-Indigenous population is critical to reduce cataract-related vision loss.

Prevalence of glaucoma in the Australian National Eye Health Survey

AIM

To estimate the prevalence of glaucoma in Australia.

METHODS

This was a population-based study of 3098 non-Indigenous Australians (50-98 years) and 1738 Indigenous Australians (40-92 years) stratified by remoteness. Each participant underwent a standard examination that included visual field assessment, tonometry and non-mydriatic fundus photography. Two fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists independently assessed relevant case notes (past ocular history, best-corrected visual acuity, frequency doubling technology visual fields, Van Herick grade, intraocular pressure and optic disc-centred photographs) and assigned a diagnosis ranked on a scale of certainty: none, possible, probable or definite glaucoma.

RESULTS

A total of 4792 (99.1%, 3062 non-Indigenous and 1730 Indigenous) participants had retinal photographs in at least one eye that were gradable for glaucoma. The weighted prevalence of glaucoma (definite) in non-Indigenous Australians and Indigenous Australians was 1.5% (95% CI 1.0 to 2.2) and 0.6% (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1), respectively. When definite and probable cases of glaucoma were combined, rates were 3.4% (95% CI 2.7 to 4.3) among non-Indigenous and 1.6% (95% CI 1.1 to 2.3) in Indigenous Australians. Only 52.4% of non-Indigenous Australians and 28.0% of Indigenous Australians with glaucoma self-reported a known history of glaucoma.

CONCLUSION

We estimate that 198 923 non-Indigenous Australians aged 50 years and over and 2139 Indigenous Australians aged 40 years and over have glaucoma. Given the high rates of undiagnosed glaucoma coupled with a significant ageing of the Australian population, improvements in case detection and access to low vision rehabilitation services may be required to cope with the growing burden of glaucoma.

Prevalence and associations of presenting near-vision impairment in the Australian National Eye Health Survey

PurposeTo describe the prevalence and associations of presenting near vision impairment (NVI) in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.MethodsA sample of 3098 non-Indigenous Australians (aged 50-98 years) and 1738 Indigenous Australians (aged 40-92 years) living in 30 randomly selected Australian sites were examined as part of the population-based National Eye Health Survey (NEHS). Binocular presenting NVI was defined as near vision worse than N8 (20/50).ResultsIn total, 4817 participants (99.6% of the total sample, comprising 3084 non-Indigenous Australians and 1733 Indigenous Australians) had complete data on near visual acuity. The overall weighted prevalence of presenting NVI was 21.6% (95% CI: 19.6, 23.8) in non-Indigenous Australians and 34.7% (95% CI: 29.2, 40.8) among Indigenous Australians. In the non-Indigenous population, higher odds of presenting NVI were associated with older age (OR=1.68 per 10 years, P<0.001), fewer years of education (OR=0.95 per year, P<0.001) and residing in Remote geographical areas (OR=1.71, P=0.003) after multivariate adjustments. Among Indigenous Australians, older age (OR=1.69 per 10 years, P<0.001), fewer years of education (OR=0.91 per year, P=0.003) and residing in Inner Regional (OR=2.01, P=0.008), Outer Regional (OR=2.17, P=<0.001) and Remote geographical areas (OR=1.72, P=0.03) were associated with greater odds of presenting NVI.ConclusionsNVI represents a notable public health concern in Australia, affecting approximately 20% of non-Indigenous Australian and one-third of Indigenous Australian adults.

Population-based assessment of visual acuity outcomes following cataract surgery in Australia: the National Eye Health Survey

AIM

To assess the visual outcomes of cataract surgery among a national sample of non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians.

METHODS

This was a population-based study of 3098 non-Indigenous Australians (50-98 years) and 1738 Indigenous Australians (40-92 years), stratified by remoteness. A poor postoperative outcome in an eye that had undergone cataract surgery was defined as presenting distance visual acuity (PVA) <6/12-6/60, and a very poor outcome was defined as PVA <6/60. Effective cataract surgery coverage (eCSC; operated cataract and a good outcome (PVA ≥6/12) as a proportion of operable plus operated cataract) was calculated.

RESULTS

The sampling weight adjusted cataract surgery prevalence was 19.8% (95% CI 17.9 to 22.0) in non-Indigenous Australians and 8.2% (95% CI 6.0 to 9.6) in Indigenous Australians. Among the non-Indigenous population, poor and very poor PVA outcomes were present in 18.1% and 1.9% of eyes, respectively. For Indigenous Australians, these values were 27.8% and 6.3%, respectively. The main causes of poor vision were refractive error (non-Indigenous=41.8%; Indigenous=41.9%) and coincident disease (non-Indigenous=43.3%; Indigenous=40.3%). The eCSC rates in the non-Indigenous and Indigenous populations were 88.5% (95% CI 85.2 to 91.2) and 51.6% (95% CI 42.4 to 60.7), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Approximately half of eyes with a poor visual outcome postcataract surgery could be readily avoided through the appropriate refractive correction. The finding of a lower eCSC rate among Indigenous Australians suggests that improvements in access and quality of cataract services may be warranted in order to reduce cataract-related vision loss in the Indigenous population.

Prevalence of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Australia: The Australian National Eye Health Survey

Importance

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of irreversible blindness among the elderly population globally. Currently, knowledge of the epidemiology of AMD in Australia remains scarce because of a paucity of recent population-based data.

Objective

To examine the prevalence of AMD in Australia.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this population-based, cross-sectional survey performed from March 11, 2015, to April 18, 2016, a sample of 3098 nonindigenous Australians 50 years and older and 1738 indigenous Australians 40 years and older from 30 geographic areas across Australia were examined.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Any AMD, early AMD, intermediate AMD, and late AMD graded according to the Beckman clinical classification system.

Results

A total of 4836 individuals were examined, including 3098 nonindigenous Australian (64.1%; 58.9% female vs 41.1% male; age range, 40-92 years; mean [SD] age, 55.0 [10.0] years) and 1738 indigenous Australians (35.9%; 53.6% female vs 46.4% male; age range, 50-98 years; mean [SD] age, 66.6 [9.7] years). A total of 4589 (94.9%, 2946 nonindigenous and 1643 indigenous) participants had retinal photographs in at least 1 eye that were gradable for AMD. The weighted prevalence of early AMD was 14.8% (95% CI, 11.7%-18.6%) and of intermediate AMD was 10.5% (95% CI, 8.3%-13.1%) among nonindigenous Australians. In indigenous Australians, the weighted prevalence of early AMD was 13.8% (95% CI, 9.7%-19.3%) and of intermediate AMD was 5.7% (96% CI, 4.7%-7.0%). Late AMD was found in 0.96% (95% CI, 0.59%-1.55%) of nonindigenous participants (atrophic, 0.72%; neovascular, 0.24%). The prevalence of late AMD increased to 6.7% in participants 80 years or older and was higher in men (1.4% vs 0.61%, P = .02). Only 3 (0.17% [95% CI, 0.04%-0.63%]) indigenous participants had late (atrophic) AMD. Age-related macular degeneration was attributed as the main cause of vision loss (<6/12 in the better eye) in 23 of 208 nonindigenous Australians (11.1%) and 2 of 183 indigenous Australians (1.1%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In line with data from other white populations, AMD is a prominent cause of vision loss in the nonindigenous Australian population. An increased provision of low vision rehabilitation services may be required to cope with the projected increase in AMD in Australia.

Prevalence of retinal vein occlusion in the Australian National Eye Health Survey

IMPORTANCE

In Australia, knowledge of the epidemiology of retinal vein occlusion remains scarce because of a paucity of recent population-based data. The National Eye Health Survey (2015-2016) provides an up-to-date estimate of the prevalence of retinal vein occlusion in non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australian adults.

BACKGROUND

To determine the prevalence and associations of retinal vein occlusion in a national sample of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian adults.

DESIGN

Population-based cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 3098 non-Indigenous Australians (aged 50-98 years) and 1738 Indigenous Australians (aged 40-92 years) living in 30 randomly selected sites, stratified by remoteness.

METHODS

Retinal vein occlusions were graded from retinal photographs using standardized protocols and recorded as central retinal vein occlusion or branch retinal vein occlusion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Prevalence of retinal vein occlusion.

RESULTS

In the non-Indigenous population, the sampling weight adjusted prevalence of any retinal vein occlusion was 0.96% (95% confidence interval: 0.59, 1.6), with branch retinal vein occlusion observed in 0.72% (95% confidence interval: 0.41, 1.2) and central retinal vein occlusion in 0.24% (95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.47). Any retinal vein occlusion was found in 0.91% (95% confidence interval: 0.47, 1.7) of Indigenous Australians aged 40 years and over, with branch retinal vein occlusion observed in 0.83% (95% confidence interval: 0.40, 1.7) and central retinal vein occlusion in 0.07% (95% confidence interval: 0.02, 0.32). Older age (odds ratio = 1.64 per 10 years, P = 0.006) and the presence of self-reported diabetes (odds ratio = 3.24, P = 0.006) were associated with any retinal vein occlusion after multivariable adjustments. Retinal vein occlusion was attributed as the cause of monocular vision loss (<6/12) in seven (0.25%) non-Indigenous and six (0.36%) Indigenous participants.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These data suggest that retinal vein occlusion is relatively uncommon in the non-Indigenous Australians aged 50 years and over and Indigenous Australians aged 40 years and over. Similar to previous Australian and international reports, the prevalence of retinal vein occlusion rose sharply with age.

The validity of self-report of eye diseases in participants with vision loss in the National Eye Health Survey

We assessed the validity and reliability of self-report of eye disease in participants with unilateral vision loss (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 in the worse eye and equal to or better than 6/12 in the better eye) or bilateral vision loss (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 in the better eye) in Australia’s National Eye Health Survey. In total, 1738 Indigenous Australians and 3098 non-Indigenous Australians were sampled from 30 sites. Participants underwent a questionnaire and self-reported their eye disease histories. A clinical examination identified whether participants had cataract, age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. For those identified as having unilateral or bilateral vision loss (438 Indigenous Australians and 709 non-Indigenous Australians), self-reports were compared with examination results using validity and reliability measures. Reliability was poor for all four diseases (Kappa 0.06 to 0.37). Measures of validity of self-report were variable, with generally high specificities (93.7% to 99.2%) in all diseases except for cataract (63.9 to 73.1%) and low sensitivities for all diseases (7.6% in Indigenous Australians with diabetic retinopathy to 44.1% of non-Indigenous Australians with cataract). This study suggests that self-report is an unreliable population-based research tool for identifying eye disease in those with vision loss.

The Prevalence and Causes of Vision Loss in Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians: The National Eye Health Survey

PURPOSE

To conduct a nationwide survey on the prevalence and causes of vision loss in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

DESIGN

Nationwide, cross-sectional, population-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Indigenous Australians aged 40 years or older and non-Indigenous Australians aged 50 years and older.

METHODS

Multistage random-cluster sampling was used to select 3098 non-Indigenous Australians and 1738 Indigenous Australians from 30 sites across 5 remoteness strata (response rate of 71.5%). Sociodemographic and health data were collected using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Trained examiners conducted standardized eye examinations, including visual acuity, perimetry, slit-lamp examination, intraocular pressure, and fundus photography. The prevalence and main causes of bilateral presenting vision loss (visual acuity <6/12 in the better eye) were determined, and risk factors were identified.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence and main causes of vision loss.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of vision loss in Australia was 6.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-7.8). The prevalence of vision loss was 11.2% (95% CI, 9.5-13.1) in Indigenous Australians and 6.5% (95% CI, 5.3-7.9) in non-Indigenous Australians. Vision loss was 2.8 times more prevalent in Indigenous Australians than in non-Indigenous Australians after age and gender adjustment (17.7%, 95% CI, 14.5-21.0 vs. 6.4%, 95% CI, 5.2-7.6, P < 0.001). In non-Indigenous Australians, the leading causes of vision loss were uncorrected refractive error (61.3%), cataract (13.2%), and age-related macular degeneration (10.3%). In Indigenous Australians, the leading causes of vision loss were uncorrected refractive error (60.8%), cataract (20.1%), and diabetic retinopathy (5.2%). In non-Indigenous Australians, increasing age (odds ratio [OR], 1.72 per decade) and having not had an eye examination within the past year (OR, 1.61) were risk factors for vision loss. Risk factors in Indigenous Australians included older age (OR, 1.61 per decade), remoteness (OR, 2.02), gender (OR, 0.60 for men), and diabetes in combination with never having had an eye examination (OR, 14.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Vision loss is more prevalent in Indigenous Australians than in non-Indigenous Australians, highlighting that improvements in eye healthcare in Indigenous communities are required. The leading causes of vision loss were uncorrected refractive error and cataract, which are readily treatable. Other countries with Indigenous communities may benefit from conducting similar surveys of Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.

Treatment coverage rates for refractive error in the National Eye Health survey

OBJECTIVE

To present treatment coverage rates and risk factors associated with uncorrected refractive error in Australia.

METHODS

Thirty population clusters were randomly selected from all geographic remoteness strata in Australia to provide samples of 1738 Indigenous Australians aged 40 years and older and 3098 non-Indigenous Australians aged 50 years and older. Presenting visual acuity was measured and those with vision loss (worse than 6/12) underwent pinhole testing and hand-held auto-refraction. Participants whose corrected visual acuity improved to be 6/12 or better were assigned as having uncorrected refractive error as the main cause of vision loss. The treatment coverage rates of refractive error were calculated (proportion of participants with refractive error that had distance correction and presenting visual acuity better than 6/12), and risk factor analysis for refractive correction was performed.

RESULTS

The refractive error treatment coverage rate in Indigenous Australians of 82.2% (95% CI 78.6-85.3) was significantly lower than in non-Indigenous Australians (93.5%, 92.0-94.8) (Odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 0.35-0.75). In Indigenous participants, remoteness (OR 0.41, 0.19-0.89 and OR 0.55, 0.35-0.85 in Outer Regional and Very Remote areas, respectively), having never undergone an eye examination (OR 0.08, 0.02-0.43) and having consulted a health worker other than an optometrist or ophthalmologist (OR 0.30, 0.11-0.84) were risk factors for low coverage. On the other hand, speaking English was a protective factor (OR 2.72, 1.13-6.45) for treatment of refractive error. Compared to non-Indigenous Australians who had an eye examination within one year, participants who had not undergone an eye examination within the past five years (OR 0.08, 0.03-0.21) or had never been examined (OR 0.05, 0.10-0.23) had lower coverage.

CONCLUSION

Interventions that increase integrated optometry services in regional and remote Indigenous communities may improve the treatment coverage rate of refractive error. Increasing refractive error treatment coverage rates in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians through at least five-yearly eye examinations and the provision of affordable spectacles will significantly reduce the national burden of vision loss in Australia.