THE JOURNAL OF SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY MEDICINE - Volume 8 issue 4, October-December 2021

Pages: 5-23

VISION SCREENING OF FOUR-AND FIVE-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN IN CLUJ COUNTY: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONWIDE IMPLEMENTATION

Jan Kik, Mandy Nordmann, Daniela Rajka, Mihai Mara, Simona Cainap, Oana Teodosescu, Alin Vladescu, Aurel Mocan, Anna Horwood, Maria Fronius, Cristina Vladutiu, Huibert Jan Simonsz

Category: Medical

Download PDF

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Vision screening by measurement of visual acuity at age four or five was implemented in Cluj County in 2018 and 2019. Our aim was to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and to formulate conditions for nationwide implementation of vision screening in Romania.

METHODS: In cities, children were screened by resident kindergarten nurses. In rural areas, kindergartens are small and have no nurses. Children were screened by family doctors’ nurses instead, initially at the doctors’ offices and later also at kindergartens. Because rural coverage was low in the first year, a travelling screening nurse was employed to screen children in remote rural areas.

Implementation was assessed with on-site observations, interviews, questionnaires and analysis of screening results, including ophthalmological examinations.

RESULTS: In cities, 74.8% of eligible children were screened, in rural areas, 47.1%. The travelling screening nurse screened 805 children in seven months and rural communes where screening had taken place increased from 24 to 72 out of 75 during the second year. Referral rate was 15.8% initially, decreasing to 7.9%, varying between 0% and 57.1% among screeners. Of referred children, 27.8% were reported back by ophthalmologists, 15.3% were examined but not reported back, 21.4% were not examined and of 35.4% it was unclear whether they were examined. Referral and treatment were hampered by travel distance and lack of awareness. Of children reported back by ophthalmologists, 34.1% were prescribed glasses, 7.2% both glasses and occlusion and 0.7% occlusion. Vision screening was considered acceptable by respondents. However, in rural communes screening was deemed less appropriate and feasible. Fidelity was high in both urban and rural areas.

CONCLUSIONS: In cities, screening by kindergarten nurses proved very effective. In rural areas, family doctors’ nurses screened only screen small numbers of children. The travelling screening nurse screened many children in underserved rural communes and screening had been offered in almost all rural communes at the end of the study. Universal vision screening at age four or five in Romania will result in many children with amblyopia needing treatment with glasses and eye patches, for which reimbursement by health insurance may be necessary. A training programme for orthoptists to assist ophthalmologists could be advisable.

Keywords: vision screening, amblyopia, children, implementation study, disparity

References:

1. Euscreen website. https://www.euscreen.org. Accessed 11 August 2021.

2. Euscreen cost-effectiveness model. https://miscan.euscreen.org. Accessed 20 October 2021.

3. Norme Metodologice din 29 iunie 2021. https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/244628. Accessed 25 October 2021.

4. Kik J, Nordmann M, Cainap S, Mara M, Rajka D, Ghitiu M, Vladescu A, Sloot F, Horwood AM, Fronius M, Vladutiu C, Simonsz HJ. Implementation of paediatric vision screening in urban and rural areas in Cluj County, Romania. Int J Equity Health [in press].

5. Romanian National Institute for Statistics. http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table. Accessed 2 April 2019.

6. Groenewoud JH, Tjiam AM, Lantau VK et al, Hoogeveen WC, Tjeerd J, Faber HN de, Juttmann RE, Koning HJ de, Simonsz HJ. Rotterdam AMblyopia Screening Effectiveness Study: Detection and Causes of Amblyopia in a Large Birth Cohort. IOVS. 2010;51:3476–3484.

7. Fronius M. Okklusionstherapie bei Amblyopie. Altersabhängigkeit und Dosis-Wirkungs-Beziehung. Ophthalmologe 2016;113:296-303.

8. Holmes J, Levi D. Treatment of amblyopia as a function of age. Vis Neurosci. 2018;35:E015.

9. Høeg TB, Moldow B, Ellervik C, Klemp K, Erngaard D, Cour M la, Buch H. Danish Rural Eye Study: the association of preschool vision screening with the prevalence of amblyopia. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93:322-329.

10. Telleman MAJ, Sloot F, Benjamins J, Simonsz HJ. High rate of failed visual-acuity measurements with the Amsterdam Picture Chart in screening at the age of 36 months. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019;97(1):24-28.

11. International Organization for Standardization, Ophthalmic optics — Visual acuity testing — Standard and clinical optotypes and their presentation (ISO Standard No. 8596:2017).

12. Ordin nr. 141 din 1 martie 2000. http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/23814. Accessed 24 August 2021.

13. Ciolan L, Iucu R, Petrescu A, Bucur C. Romania – ECEC Workforce Profile. In: Oberhuemer P, Schreyer I, editors. Early Childhood Workforce Profiles in 30 Countries with Key Contextual Data. 2018;Munich: SEEPRO-R:930-954.

14. Hot?rârea nr. 714/2018 din 13 septembrie 2018. https://codfiscal.net/46238/hg-714-2018-indemnizatia-de-deplasare-detasare-alocatia-de-cazare-drepturi-si-obligatii-personal-bugetar. Accessed 20 October 2021.

15. Ursuletul la Oftalmolog v 2.0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrecUmlUXV8. Accessed 1 October 2021.

16. WMA. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects. Accessed 21 November 2019.

17. Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ. 2013;347:f6753.

18. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

19. Leech B. Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews. PS. 2002;35(4):665-668.

20. Thomas DR. A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. Am J Eval. 2006;27(2):237-246.

21. Dumitrache L, Nae M, Dumbr?veanu D, Simion G & Suditu B. Contrasting Clustering in Health Care Provision in Romania: Spatial and Aspatial Limitations. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 2016;32: 290–299.

22. World Health Organization. Evaluation of the organization and provision of primary care in Romania. A survey-based project. 2012;Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

23. Predescu M. Quality in and Equality of Access to Healthcare Services. Country Report for Romania. 2008;Bucharest: The Institute of Public Health.

24. Vongsachang H, Friedman D, Inns A, Kretz A, Mukherjee M, Callan J, Wahl M, Repka M, Collins M. Parent and Teacher Perspectives on Factors Decreasing Participation in School-Based Vision Programs. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2020;27:1-11.

25. Pop OM, Brînzaniuc A, ?irlincan EO, Baba CO, Chereche? RM. Assessing health literacy in rural settings: a pilot study in rural areas of Cluj County, Romania. Glob Health Promot. 2013;20(4):35–43.

26. Holmes JM, Clarke MP. Amblyopia. The Lancet. 2006;367(9519):1343-1351.

DOI: 10.51546/JSUM.2021.8401

DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.51546/JSUM.2021.8401