The economics of vision impairment and its leading causes: A systematic review

Vision impairment (VI) can have wide ranging economic impact on individuals, households, and health systems. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and summarise the costs associated with VI and its major causes. We searched MEDLINE (16 November 2019), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment database (12 December 2019) for partial or full economic evaluation studies, published between 1 January 2000 and the search dates, reporting cost data for participants with VI due to an unspecified cause or one of the seven leading causes globally: cataract, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, corneal opacity, trachoma. The search was repeated on 20 January 2022 to identify studies published since our initial search. Included studies were quality appraised using the British Medical Journal Checklist for economic submissions adapted for cost of illness studies. Results were synthesized in a structured narrative. Of the 138 included studies, 38 reported cost estimates for VI due to an unspecified cause and 100 reported costs for one of the leading causes. These 138 studies provided 155 regional cost estimates. Fourteen studies reported global data; 103/155 (66%) regional estimates were from high-income countries. Costs were most commonly reported using a societal (n = 48) or healthcare system perspective (n = 25). Most studies included only a limited number of cost components. Large variations in methodology and reporting across studies meant cost estimates varied considerably. The average quality assessment score was 78% (range 35-100%); the most common weaknesses were the lack of sensitivity analysis and insufficient disaggregation of costs. There was substantial variation across studies in average treatment costs per patient for most conditions, including refractive error correction (range $12-$201 ppp), cataract surgery (range $54-$3654 ppp), glaucoma (range $351-$1354 ppp) and AMD (range $2209-$7524 ppp). Future cost estimates of the economic burden of VI and its major causes will be improved by the development and adoption of a reference case for eye health. This could then be used in regular studies, particularly in countries with data gaps, including low- and middle-income countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Oceania, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.

Attitude toward immunization and risk perception of measles, rubella, mumps, varicella, and pertussis in health care workers working in 6 hospitals of Florence, Italy 2011

BACKGROUND

Health care workers (HCWs) are at risk of infection and transmission of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases. In recent years cases of measles or varicella in health care workers were observed with increasing frequency. The aim of our study was to investigate attitude toward immunization and risk perception of measles, rubella, mumps, varicella, and pertussis in HCWs working in 6 hospitals of Florence (Italy).

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey among the physicians, nurses, midwives, and nursing assistants working in selected departments was performed trough a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire. Overall, 600 questionnaires were sent and 436 HCWs' completed forms were included into the study (Participation rate: 72.7%). Data were analyzed with STATA 11.0® and odds ratio (OR) were calculated in a multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Among all respondents 74.9% were females. The average age was nearly 43-years-old (42.9-SD 8.95). The majority of participants (58.6%) were nurses, 21.3% physicians, 12.9% nursing assistants, and 7.2% were midwives. Among those HCWs reporting no history of disease, 52.8% (95% CI: 42.0-63.3%) declared to have been immunized for measles, 46.9% for rubella (95% CI: 39.0-54.9%), 21.6% for mumps (95% CI: 15.1-29.4%), 14.9% for varicella (95% CI: 7.4-25.7%), and 14.5% for pertussis (95% CI: 10.0-20.0%). When considering potentially susceptible HCWs (without history of disease or vaccination and without serological confirmation), less than a half of them feel at risk for the concerned diseases and only less than 30% would undergo immunization. One of the main reasons of the relatively low coverage was indeed lack of active offer of vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes toward immunization observed in this study are generally positive for preventing some infectious diseases (i.e., measles and rubella), but relatively poor for others (i.e., varicella). More information should be made available to HCWs on the benefits of vaccination and efforts to encourage vaccination uptake should be performed. Educational program on the risk of being infected working in a hospital should be implemented in order to increase the risk perception toward infectious diseases among HCWs.