Purchase this article with an account.
E.E. Hartmann, G. Bradford, W.L. Marsh-Tootle, T. Johnson, A. Kemper, PUPVS Advisory Panel; Project Universal Preschool Vision Screening (PUPVS): Implementation of a Standardized Vision Screening Protocol in Primary Care and Early Care and Education Settings . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):2000.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: PUPVS is a cooperative agreement between the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The purpose of this project was to implement the vision screening recommendations proposed in 1998 by the MCHB and National Eye Institute (NEI) Vision Screening in the Preschool Child Task Force. Methods: Five pilot sites were selected for funding by the PUPVS Advisory Panel. The screening protocol was implemented for one year at sites in California, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Results: To date, the reported number of children screened at all sites were: In this study, nearly all children already had established "medical homes" for primary care. Conclusions: Four-year olds were more often successfully screened compared with three-year olds. Most sites reported difficulty with parental compliance with follow-up examinations and obtaining results of the examination from the eye care specialist. The MCHB-NEI preschool vision screening recommendations can be carried out at a community level, both in primary care settings as well as early childhood settings (e.g., Head Start, child care centers, nursery schools). Training was critical for lay personnel and primary care medical staff, and re-training was necessary due to high turn-over rates. Overall satisfaction with the protocol was strong and virtually all settings indicated plans to continue following these recommendations. Further work is needed to verify whether sites in fact continue to screen after the study ended, and to determine the sensitivity, specificity, rates of examination, and numbers of children still unscreened in participating communities. View OriginalDownload SlideView OriginalDownload Slide
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only