April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Cost-Effectiveness of Eye-Mobile Follow-up For Preschool Vision Screening
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Eugene Lowry
    Ophthalmology, UCSF, San Francisco, CA
  • Alejandra G de Alba Campomanes
    Ophthalmology, UCSF, San Francisco, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Eugene Lowry, None; Alejandra de Alba Campomanes, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 4494. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Eugene Lowry, Alejandra G de Alba Campomanes; Cost-Effectiveness of Eye-Mobile Follow-up For Preschool Vision Screening. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):4494.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: Obtaining high follow-up rates on children referred from preschool vision screening is a challenge. A growing number of screening programs are providing free preschool-based eye-examinations to referred children using an eye-mobile. We investigate the costs and follow-up rates of eye-mobile care necessary to be as cost-effective as referral to community providers.

Methods: Two preschool screening programs conducted at the same 37 public preschools from 2009-2013 were compared. In the first program, children were screened with vision charts and referred for community follow-up. In the second, they were screened with auto-refraction and referred to eye-mobile follow-up. We assume screening parameters (referral rate, positive predictive value, and screening cost) are independent of follow-up parameters (follow-up rate and exam cost). We then model an auto-refraction screening program using the screening parameters of the second program paired with either community follow-up rates and costs or eye-mobile follow-up rates and costs. Cases were defined by 2013 AAPOS criteria for significant refractive error or strabismus on cover-uncover test. Cost-effectiveness was defined as cost per case detected. The maximum cost of eye-mobile exams to be equally cost-effective with community referral was determined across a range of follow-up rates.

Results: The auto-refraction screening program had a referral rate of 13.4%, positive predictive value of 49.1% and screening cost of $8.45. Follow-up rate in the community referral program was 59% compared with 55% in the eye-mobile follow-up program (p = 0.41, Fisher exact test). Cost per community-based exam was $151 for an average cost per case detected of $526. At the observed 55% follow-up rate with eye-mobile examinations, eye-mobile exam costs would have to be $143 or less to be as cost-effective as community referral. If eye-mobile follow-up were able to increase follow-up rates to 100%, eye-mobile exams would remain cost-effective to a price of $195.

Conclusions: We do not find evidence that free preschool-based eye examinations significantly increase follow-up rates in children referred from preschool screenings. Organizations providing vision services in the community may compare their individual costs to the cost-effective criteria presented here to determine whether community or eye-mobile referral would be more cost-effective.

Keywords: 723 strabismus: diagnosis and detection • 417 amblyopia  

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.