An investigation of barriers and enablers to community eye care for children in England: A qualitative descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Research suggests that there are challenges in the accessibility of eye care for children in England. This study explores the barriers and enablers to eye examinations for children under 5 years of age from the perspective of community optometrists in England. METHODS: Optometrists working in community settings were invited to participate in virtual focus group discussions using an online platform based on a topic guide. The discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Themes were derived from the focus group data based on the study aim and research question. RESULTS: Thirty optometrists participated in the focus group discussions. The overarching themes identified as barriers to eye examinations for young children in a community setting were as follows: 'Time and Money', 'Knowledge, Skills and Confidence', 'Awareness and Communication', 'Range of Attitudes' and 'Clinical Setting'. The key themes for enabling eye examinations for young children were as follows: 'Improving behaviour', 'Enhancing training and education', 'Enhancing eye care services', 'Raising awareness', 'Changes in professional bodies' and 'Balancing commercial pressures and health care'. CONCLUSION: Time, money, training and equipment are perceived by optometrists as key factors in providing an eye examination for a young child. This study identified a need for improved training and robust governance related to eye examinations for young children. There is a need for change within eye care service delivery such that all children, regardless of age and ability, are examined regularly, and by conducting these examinations, optometrists remain confident.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the agreement of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic agreement of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children. METHOD: The study methodology followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases were searched for comparative studies exploring refraction performed on children under non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. There was no restriction on the year of publication; however, only publications in the English language were eligible. Inclusion criteria consisted of children aged ≤12 years, any degree or type of refractive error, either sex and no ocular or binocular co-morbidities. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted to synthesise data from all included studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken for those studies with a risk of bias. RESULTS: Ten studies consisting of 2724 participants were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The test for overall effect was not significant when comparing non-cycloplegic Plusoptix and cycloplegic autorefractors (Z = 0.34, p = 0.74). The pooled mean difference (MD) was -0.08 D (95% CI -0.54 D, +0.38 D) with a prediction interval of -1.72 D to +1.56 D. At less than 0.25 D, this indicates marginal overestimation of myopia and underestimation of hyperopia under non-cycloplegic conditions. When comparing non-cycloplegic autorefraction with a Retinomax and Canon autorefractor to cycloplegic refraction, a significant difference was found (Z = 9.79, p < 0.001) and (Z = 4.61, p < 0.001), respectively. DISCUSSION: Non-cycloplegic Plusoptix is the most useful autorefractor for estimating refractive error in young children with low to moderate levels of hyperopia. Results also suggest that cycloplegic refraction must remain the test of choice when measuring refractive error ≤12 years of age. There were insufficient data to explore possible reasons for heterogeneity. Further research is needed to investigate the agreement between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in relation to the type and level of refractive error at different ages.

How accessible is primary eye care for children in England?

PURPOSE: Good vision during childhood is vital for visual, educational, and social development. Previous research highlights challenges in the accessibility of eye care for children. This study investigates the accessibility of primary eye care for young children with typical development and those with autism in England. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted using four hypothetical scenarios (a child aged 1, 3, 5 years and a 13-year-old with autism). Four hundred community optometric practices (100 different practices for each scenario) were contacted to explore the availability of an eye examination. The caller acted as a parent, asking about the availability of an eye examination for their child and raising concerns regarding the child. Key barriers and enablers to the accessibility of primary eye care were identified through an analysis of qualitative information. RESULTS: Of the 400 practices, only three (<1%) stated that they do not perform eye examinations on children. Fifty-six practices (14%) stated that they would examine a child at any age, the remainder (n = 341, 85%) specifying a minimum age at which they would perform eye examinations on children. Lack of 'communication' from the child and 'equipment' were identified as barriers to accessing eye care for young children. Eye care for children with autism was enabled by factors related to adaptability and appointment time. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that communication and a lack of appropriate equipment for examining children are potential barriers to accessing primary eye care. No clear barriers were identified for an older child with autism. Eye examinations are more accessible for older children in these scenarios (aged 5 with typical development and 13 years with autism) than younger children (aged 1 and 3 years old). While the UK General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) terms do not permit contract holders to exclude categories of patients from a GOS eye exam, our findings suggest this is taking place.