Health Impact of Street Sweeps from the Perspective of Healthcare Providers.

BACKGROUND: Homeless street sweeps are frequent operations in many cities in the USA in which government agencies move unhoused people living in public outdoor areas. Little research exists on the health impact of street sweeps operations. OBJECTIVE: This study was created at the request of community advocacy groups to investigate and document the health impacts of street sweeps from the perspective of healthcare providers. DESIGN: This is a qualitative study using data gathered from open-ended questions. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 39 healthcare providers who provided health and wellness services in San Francisco for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) between January 2018 and January 2020. INTERVENTIONS: We administered a qualitative, open-ended questionnaire to healthcare providers using Qualtrics surveying their perspectives on the health impact of street sweeps. APPROACH: We conducted qualitative thematic analysis on questionnaire results. KEY RESULTS: Street sweeps may negatively impact health through two outcomes. The first outcome is material loss, including belongings and medical items. The second outcome is instability, including geographic displacement, community fragmentation, and loss to follow-up. These outcomes may contribute to less effective management of chronic health conditions, infectious diseases, and substance use disorders, and may increase physical injuries and worsen mental health. Providers also reported that sweeps may negatively impact the healthcare system by promoting increased usage of emergency departments and inpatient hospital care. CONCLUSIONS: Sweeps may have several negative consequences for the physical and mental health of the PEH community and for the healthcare system.

Teacher and school staff perspectives on their role in school-based vision programs.

OBJECTIVE: School-based vision programs (SBVPs) are one approach to increase access to vision care by providing vision screenings, eye examinations, and eyeglasses directly in schools. Few studies report on the perspectives of teachers and staff, who are important stakeholders, on SBVPs. We examined teacher and staff perspectives on their involvement in SBVPs. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Teachers and staff at Baltimore and Chicago public schools served by SBVPs between 2016 and 2018. METHODS: We conducted 21 semistructured focus groups with 117 teachers and staff in 10 Baltimore and 11 Chicago public preK-12 schools that participated in SBVPs. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and coded using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified 2 main themes regarding teacher and staff involvement in SBVPs: (i) program outreach, including using multiple communication modalities to engage parents, explaining program details to families, and helping with program consent form return and (ii) promoting vision health, including identifying vision problems in the classroom, encouraging eyeglasses wear, and supporting eyeglasses maintenance. Participants also discussed limitations in capacity to partake in these activities. CONCLUSION: Teachers interact with parents and students throughout the SBVP process, undertaking important roles in outreach and health promotion to ensure uptake of SBVP services. SBVPs and other school-based health programs should explore strategies to support teachers in the roles they fill to optimize program impact.

Refractive Error Findings in Students Who Failed School-based Vision Screening.

PURPOSE: To report refractive error findings in Baltimore City schoolchildren who failed school-based vision screenings. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, students pre-kindergarten through 8th grade who failed screenings during school years 2016-2019 received an eye examination, including non-cycloplegic autorefraction and visual acuity (VA) measurements. Refractive error was identified when there was at least: -0.50 diopter (D) spherical equivalent (SE) myopia, +0.50D SE hyperopia, 1.00D astigmatism, or 1.00D anisometropia in either eye. Generalized estimating equation models were used to identify factors associated with clinically significant refractive error, defined as decreased VA and more severe refractive error. RESULTS: Of 7520 students who failed screening, 6627 (88%) were analyzed. Clinically significant refractive error and any refractive error were found in 2352 (35.5%) and 5952 (89.8%) students, respectively. Mild myopia (45%, -0.50 D to <-3.00 D SE) and low astigmatism (47%, 1.00 D to <3.00 D cylinder) were the most prevalent types of refractive error. Proportions of students with myopia increased with higher grade levels (Ptrend<0.001). Myopia and astigmatism were more common in black and Latinx. Risk factors for clinically significant refractive error included higher grades (odds ratios [OR] ranged from 1.30 to 2.19 compared with 1st grade, P < .05) and Latinx ethnicity (OR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.08-1.59). CONCLUSION: A Baltimore school-based vision program identified a substantial number of students with refractive error in a high-poverty urban community. Over 1/3 students who failed vision screening had clinically significant refractive error, with black and Latinx students at higher risk of having myopia and astigmatism.

Stakeholders' Perceptions of a School-Based Eye Care Programme in Baltimore, MD.

PURPOSE: To explore stakeholders' perceptions of a school-based vision programme (SBVP). METHODS: We conducted 20 focus groups with 105 parents and teachers at schools in Baltimore, MD, that participated in a SBVP. Facilitators used a semi-structured interview guide to discuss participants' perceptions of the SBVP. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participant perceptions fell into three categories: benefits of school-based eye care, limitations of school-based eye care, and observation of impact. The majority of participants had positive comments about the programme; benefits included convenience (location, time, and cost), the comprehensive nature of the programme, the quality of the eyeglasses and ability to receive replacements, and a positive screening/exam experience. Limitations of programme impact were related to communication and organisation, the time to receive the glasses, missed instructional time, and uncertainty about screenings. Observations of impact included academic and classroom improvements, as well as visual and other health improvements. CONCLUSION: Parents and teachers reported mostly positive perceptions regarding the SBVP. Their appreciation for the convenience underscores that location, cost, time, and comprehensive services are crucial aspects for implementing a successful programme. To maximize impact, programs must also implement robust communication campaigns that integrate into the schools' workflow to help parents and teachers stay engaged in the process from start to finish.

Analysis of vision screening failures in a school-based vision program (2016-19).

BACKGROUND: Vision screenings of a school-based program were conducted in state-mandated grades (pre-kindergarten [pre-K] or kindergarten [K], 1st and 8th grade), and nonmandated grades (2nd to 7th). METHODS: During school years 2016-19, 51,593 pre-K to 8th grade students from 123 Baltimore City Public Schools underwent vision screenings, with 85% of the schools qualifying for Free and Reduced Price Meals. Assessments included distance visual acuity, Spot photoscreening, stereopsis, and cover testing. Screening failures were analyzed by grade using aggregate data. Failure rates for mandated and nonmandated grades were compared using a logistic regression model, and visual acuity distributions were analyzed using individual data. RESULTS: Over the 3-year period, 17,414 (34%) of students failed vision screening. Failure rates by grade ranged from 28% to 38%. Children in kindergarten and 3rd grade and higher were statistically more likely to fail screening than those in 1st grade. Reduced visual acuity was the most common reason for failure (91%). Failure rates were significantly higher in nonmandated grades than in state-mandated testing grades (34.7% vs 32.5% [P < 0.001]). Mean visual acuity of all students who failed vision screening was 20/50 in the worse-seeing eye and was 20/40 in the better-seeing eye. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of students failed vision screening. High screening failure rates across all grades suggest that screening in select grade levels, as currently mandated in Maryland schools, is inadequate for detecting vision problems in the low-income communities served by this program.