Addressing inequalities in eye health with subsidies and increased fees for General Ophthalmic Services in socio-economically deprived communities: a sensitivity analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Poor knowledge of eye health, concerns about the cost of spectacles, mistrust of optometrists and limited geographical access in socio-economically deprived areas are barriers to accessing regular eye examinations and result in low uptake and subsequent late presentation to ophthalmology clinics. Personal Medical Services (PMS) were introduced in the late 1990 s to provide locally negotiated solutions to problems associated with inequalities in access to primary care. An equivalent approach to delivery of optometric services could address inequalities in the uptake of eye examinations. STUDY DESIGN: One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses. METHODS: Variations in assumptions were included in the models for equipment and accommodation costs, uptake and length of appointments. The sensitivity analyses thresholds were cost-per-person tested below the GOS1 fee paid by the NHS and achieving break-even between income and expenditure, assuming no cross-subsidy from profits from sales of optical appliances. RESULTS: Cost per test ranged from £ 24.01 to £ 64.80 and subsidy required varied from £ 14,490 to £ 108,046. Unused capacity utilised for local enhanced service schemes such as glaucoma referral refinement reduced the subsidy needed. CONCLUSIONS: In order to support the financial viability of primary eye care in socio-economically deprived communities, income is required from additional subsidies or from sources other than eye examinations, such as ophthalmic or other optometric community services. This would require a significant shift of activity from secondary to primary care locations. The subsidy required could also be justified by the utility gain from earlier detection of preventable sight loss.

Why don't younger adults in England go to have their eyes examined?

PURPOSE: Most research on attitudes to eye health has focussed on older people, reflecting the higher prevalence of eye diseases in older age groups. Little is known about younger people's attitudes to eye health. This paper explores young adults understanding of eye health and the purpose of eye examinations and the reasons why they do or do not attend for eye examinations. The aim is to provide evidence to inform policy on recommendations relating to eye health for individuals at low risk of visual impairment. METHODS: Six focus-group meetings were held in Leeds with 43 people aged 18-35 (mean age 22 years). Focus group participants were recruited using a snowballing approach from an initial group of young adults. Focus groups were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was used. RESULTS: Children who wore spectacles were often bullied. As people grew up it became more socially acceptable to wear spectacles. Practicalities, aesthetics and fashion were important issues. Knowledge about eye disease and the eye examination were generally poor. Many claimed to value vision, but recognised that young people do not have eye examinations as often as they should. Eye examinations were only perceived to be needed for younger people experiencing problems or to update prescriptions. Eye health was seen as issue for older people. Some had no idea or were shocked about how much spectacles cost. Optometrists were seen differently to other healthcare professionals. The retail aspect of optometry was seen as too dominant. More information was wanted from the NHS on eye health. CONCLUSION: While young adults are at low risk of sight threatening disease, many do benefit from correction of refractive error. There is an argument for reducing the recommended frequency of eye examinations for low risk individuals from the 2 years currently advised. Nevertheless, young adults need to be made more aware of eye health issues, so that optometrists are seen as more than somewhere that sell spectacles. Increasing awareness of eye health in younger adulthood will also be important to ensure that services are appropriately accessed as they get older.

Why don't older adults in England go to have their eyes examined?

PURPOSE: Preventable sight loss is one of the Public Health Outcome Indicators in England. Despite availability of NHS-funded eye examinations, many people do not take up their entitlement. This paper explores older adults understanding of eye health and the purpose of eye examinations and the reasons why they do or do not attend for eye examinations. The aim is to provide evidence to inform policy on increasing uptake of eye examinations among older people who have increased risk of preventable sight loss. METHODS: 10 focus-group meetings were held with people living in deprived areas of Leeds, recruited via community groups and neighbourhood networks. Focus groups were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was used. RESULTS: The majority of participants were aged over 60, wore spectacles, and had regular eye examinations. Most were eligible for a NHS-funded eye examination. There was poor knowledge about eye disease and the purpose of different elements of the eye examination. Participants felt very vulnerable about getting the tests 'wrong' and looking foolish. Wearing of spectacles was associated with appearing old and frail. Many did not trust the veracity of optometrists, and perceived opticians to be expensive places, where it was difficult to control spending. Many had experienced 'hard sell' and opaque pricing. Most, but not all, were happy with the optometric services received. Participants indicated a preference for utilising a local optometrist located alongside other familiar health care services. CONCLUSION: Not-for-profit services co-located with other public services are needed to address concerns about cost of spectacles, lack of trust in optometrists, and poor access to eye examinations in local settings. It will also be important to raise public understanding about the purpose of eye examinations in terms of other causes of preventable sight loss and not just refractive error and need for spectacles.

Inter- and intra-biobank networks: classification of biobanks.

BACKGROUND: Many biobanks have struggled to deliver on the high expectations and claims made for them because of insufficient samples, inadequate infrastructure, cost of establishing and maintaining a large enough resource over the long term, and satisfying legal, ethics and governance requirements. Increasingly, networks have formed to help with the collection, processing, storage, advertising, and distribution of samples. However, there are also challenges to establishing and maintaining biobank networks. AIM: To classify biobanks in order to better understand the problems faced by biobank networking. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with principal investigators and/or managers responsible for 33 biobanks in 9 countries. RESULTS: Biobanks were classified into the following categories: 'storage', 'bring-and-share', 'catalogue', 'partnership', 'contribution' and 'expertise'. CONCLUSION: It was possible to allocate all of the biobanks visited to one of the network categories although some fitted better than others. Thus, the classification may not be mutually exclusive nor encompass all types of biobanks. Many of the governance and operational problems associated with the biobanks visited were due to networking functions: either intra- or inter-biobank networks. Thus, this proposed classification system should help better understand these issues and identify solutions.

European citizens' opinions on water fluoridation.

OBJECTIVES: To understand European citizens' opinions on water fluoridation, as part of research on their attitudes to the tensions between private and public interest. METHODS: Sixty-eight focus groups held (with an average of eight people per group) in September and October 2003 in 16 countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK). RESULTS: Most participants were against water fluoridation, although groups in Greece, Ireland, Poland and Sweden were more in favour. Many felt dental health was an issue to be dealt with at the level of the individual, rather than a solution to be imposed en masse. While people accepted that some children were not encouraged to brush their teeth, they proposed other solutions to addressing these needs rather than having a solution of unproved safety imposed on them by public health authorities whom they did not fully trust. They did not see why they should accept potential side effects in order that a minority may benefit. In particular, water was something that should be kept as pure as possible, even though it was recognized that it already contains many additives. CONCLUSIONS: While the vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation, this may be indicative of shifts away from public support of population interventions towards private interventions, as well as reduced trust in public agencies. Thus if research were to demonstrate more clear benefits of water fluoridation over and above that which can be achieved by use of fluoride toothpaste, then the public may become more supportive. However, lobby groups are likely to remain influential.