Photorefraction with Spot Vision Screener versus Visual Acuity Testing as Community-Based Preschool Vision Screening at the Age of 3.5 Years in Japan.

Nationwide in Japan, a community-based vision-screening program in 3.5-year-old children is conducted in three steps: questionnaires and home visual acuity testing as the primary screening; visual acuity testing by nurses and pediatricians' inspection in community health centers as the secondary screening; and examinations by ophthalmologists as the tertiary screening. In this study, we introduced photorefraction with a Spot vision screener in addition to visual acuity testing to answer the clinical question of whether photorefraction could better detect eye diseases and potentially replace visual acuity testing. Photorefraction was performed on 813 consecutive 3.5-year-old children in a center. The children were sent to tertiary examinations, which were based on the Spot vision screener standard, in addition to the visual acuity testing standard: failure in either eye to pass 0.5 visual acuity in a center. A notice to visit ophthalmologists was issued for 95 children (11%), and documents with the diagnosis were sent back to the Heath Office for 76 children (80%). The rate of children with anisometropic or ametropic amblyopia or accommodative esotropia as treatment-requiring diseases was highest in cases of no pass at both standards (10/15 = 66%), and higher in cases of no pass only at the Spot vision screener standard (13/45 = 28%), compared with cases of no pass only at the visual acuity testing standard (6/33 = 18%, p = 0.0031). Photorefraction, in addition to visual acuity testing and inspection led to additional eye diseases detection at 3.5 years. Visual acuity testing at home would not be omitted in the introduction of photorefraction.

Validation of a vision-screening tool for use by nurses and other non-eye care health practitioners on stroke survivors.

Purpose: To validate a vision-screening tool for use by nurses and other non-eye care health practitioners (NECHP) to aid identification of visual deficits and ocular conditions in stroke survivors.Material and Methods: Stroke survivors were recruited from two metropolitan Sydney public hospitals who had no access to on-site eye care professionals. Those admitted for 3 days and who were able to provide clear responses were randomly allocated into two groups. All were assessed by a NECHP using a purposely designed bedside vision-screening tool to assess their visual function. In Group 1, the orthoptist repeated the assessment with the same vision-screening tool, in Group 2 they performed a comprehensive orthoptic assessment. Levels of agreement and sensitivity and specificity for key outcomes were assessed.Findings: Levels of agreement for most items analyzed for Group 1 reached 80%. Comparison of the screening tool to a comprehensive orthoptist assessment (Group 2), demonstrated high (88.57-91.12%) sensitivity and specificity for detecting pre-existing and acquired visual problems.Conclusion: The vision-screening tool is a valid instrument for use by NECHP, for the detection of vision defects in stroke survivors. Improved detection of eye conditions may facilitate timely identification and management of visual conditions in stroke survivors, potentially improving patient care and rehabilitation outcomes.

Development and validation of a new vision screening test algorithm for public use mobile application- A pilot study

@#algorithm for mobile application and perform a pilot study todetermine its validity and reliability as a tool for vision testin the community.Methods: A simple visual acuity test algorithm in the form ofa single letter E display was designed as the optotype fordevelopment of a mobile application. The standardisedoptotype is presented at random to test visual acuity forcorresponding level of 3/60, 6/60, 6/18, and 6/12. The finalresult is auto-generated based on the classification of theWHO for visual impairment and blindness. The Snellen chartwas used as the gold standard to determine its validity whilefive different users were involved to determine its inter-raterreliability. A pilot study was performed between April tillNovember 2019, in the Universiti Sultan Zainal AbidinMedical Centre (UMC) at Kuala Nerus and MoorisOptometrist Centre at Marang, Terengganu. A total of 279participants aged four years old and above were involved inthis study. Results: The highest sensitivity was found at the vision levelcut-off point of 6/12 with the percentage of 92.7% and 86.8%for the right and left eye, respectively. The specificity wasmore than 89% for all vision levels in both eyes. TheKrippendorff’s alpha value for the inter-rater reliability was0.87 and 0.83.Conclusion: The relatively high level of validity andreliability obtained indicate the feasibility of using thedesigned optotype to develop a valid and reliable mobile appfor vision test. The app can be used to screen vision by non-medical persons, at anytime and anywhere to help improvepublic awareness and capability to correctly determine theirvisual status.

Spectacle-wear compliance in school children in Concepción Chile.

PURPOSE: Although international policies promote programs for correction of refractive errors in school children, recent studies report low compliance with respect to spectacle wear. Our aim was to assess spectacle-wear compliance and identify associated visual factors among children participating in Chile's school spectacle provision program. METHODS: A total of 270 school children were prescribed spectacles and monitored after 1 year. Visual acuity, refractive error, reasons for not wearing spectacles, and self-reported visual function were assessed. Compliance is reported as the proportion of children wearing spectacles at the 1-year visit. Factors associated with compliance and reasons for not wearing spectacles were examined using contingency table analyses. Logistic models were constructed to assess independently associated factors. RESULTS: Only 204 children (76%) participated in the 1-year follow-up. Mean age was 10 years (range 4-19 years); 58% were girls, 42% boys. Overall compliance was 58%. Spectacle use was independently associated with age and refractive error. Older children were less likely to be compliant (odds ratio, OR, 0.8, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.76-0.92/year of increasing age). Compared with children with refractions of -0.75 to +0.75 diopters, both myopic and hyperopic children were more compliant (OR 4.93, 95% CI 2.28-10.67 and OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.06-5.31, respectively). Primary reasons for not wearing spectacles included breakage/loss in younger children, and disliking the appearance in teenagers. CONCLUSION: We found greater compliance in spectacle wear than that reported in most published studies. Guidelines for provision of children's spectacles should consider excluding children with mild refractive error and improving spectacle quality and appearance.