|
Vision Screening - Children Tables |
| Vision Children Screening |
| Burden of Disease |
Prevalence
The prevalence of undetected vision problems is 5-10%.1
The annual incidence of amblyopia and strabismus, which simple screening tests can detect, is 1-5%.2 |
| Effectiveness |
Screening tests performed in pediatrician’s offices are 60% effective in detecting vision problems. 3
Treatment is 60% effective in early correction of vision problems when factoring in patient non-adherence.3 |
| Improvability |
Screening Rate
36% of preschoolers have received vision screening each year.4 |
| Cost5 |
Annual Per Person Medical Cost of Service: $13 |
| Annual Per Person Medical Cost of Savings: $0 |
| Annual Net Costs: $13 |
| % of Service Cost Recovered in Long Run: 0% |
Sources and Footnotes:
1. National Center for Health Statistics. Refraction status and mobility defects of persons 4-74 years, U.S. 1971-1972: Vital Health Statistics, Series 11(206), 1978.
2. Hillis A, Flynn JT, Hawkins BS. The evolving concept of amblyopia: a challenge to epidemiologists. Am J Epidemiol 1983; 118(2):192-205.
3. Refer to the technical report on vision screening for children for a fuller discussion of these data and references (release of this report is pending publication of a related journal article).
4. CDC. Visual Impairment and Use of Eye-Care Services and Protective Eyewear Among Children: United States, 2002. MMWR 2005; 54 (no.17): 425-429.
5. Five notes on costs and savings: 1) Costs and savings are expressed in year 2005 dollars. 2) Costs and savings are expressed as the per person cost per year over the recommended age range to facilitate use in estimating long-term budget impact. 3) Costs and savings are not discounted to facilitate use in estimating long-term budget impact. As a result, they are not comparable to estimates that would be used in formal cost-effectiveness analysis. Services that are cost-saving from a budgetary perspective may not be cost-saving in an economic analysis that discounts future events to their present value. 4) Costs and savings reflect non-adherence and the recommended frequency of delivery. Therefore, services with less frequent intervals or with lower adherence would have a lower cost than an otherwise identical service. 5) Costs reflect both initial preventive service costs (such as screening and counseling) and necessary follow-up costs such as diagnostic testing, pharmacotherapy, and intensive interventions for weight loss.
Percentage of children aged <6 years who have ever
had their vision tested during the preceding 12 months* |
|
| Population Group (children < 6 years) |
Percentage |
| Total |
36.3 |
| Sex |
|
| Boys |
37.6 |
| Girls |
35.1 |
| Race/ethnicity |
|
| White, non-Hispanic |
35.7 |
| Black, non-Hispanic |
43.1 |
| Hispanic |
32.6 |
| Asian |
31.2 |
| American Indian/Alaska Native |
20.9† |
| Multiple race |
47.8 |
| Family Income‡ |
|
| Below Poverty Level |
35.2 |
| 100-199% of Poverty Level |
38.4 |
| > 200% of Poverty Level |
35.9 |
*Data are based on parental reporting
†Data are unreliable because relative standard error is > 30%
‡Federal Poverty Level
|
Source:
CDC. Visual Impairment and Use of Eye-Care Services and Protective Eyewear Among Children: United States, 2002. MMWR 2005; 54 (no.17): 425-429.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5417.pdf
|
|
