Search

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., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To identify barriers to attendance for eye examination of schoolchildren., Methods: Cross-sectional study. Students in grades 1-4 in elementary school in Guarulhos (Brazil) were screened and referred for ophthalmic examination in 2006. Facilities offered in this project were: examination arranged during weekends, free transportation, spectacle donation and two different opportunities for exam. A questionnaire was applied, by interview, to a sample consisted of students' parents attended in a community project who missed the first call and attended the recall, to identify the reasons for non-attendance., Results: The sample consisted of 767 parents or guardians, corresponding to an equal number of schoolchildren. Personal characteristics of the students: 49.2% male and 50.8% female, 60.2% of them had never received previous ophthalmologic evaluation. Reported reasons for no-show to the project: parents had not received appropriate orientation (35.6%), loss of working day (20.6%), illness (12.4%), had another appointment (10.0%). The need for eyeglasses was higher in the recall., Conclusions: A significant number of parents did not take their children for ophthalmological exams, even when a second opportunity was offered in projects with transportation facilities, free exams performed during weekends and spectacle donation. The main causes of absenteeism were lack of awareness and work. For 87.1% of the absenteeism cases, the difficulties could be overcome via improved structuring of the first call. A recall increases attendance coverage of target population by only 15.2% (59.3 to 74.5%). Notably, the eye exam campaign was the first exam for most of the absent students.

Purpose: We sought to evaluate visual performance and satisfaction with ready-made spectacles (RMS) in Chinese school-aged children with uncorrected refractive error., Design: Randomized, double-blind, clinical trial., Participants: Junior high school students from urban Guangzhou, China, aged approximately 12 to 15 years with > or =1 diopter (D) of uncorrected spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error. Students were excluded with > or =2.00 D astigmatism, > or =2 D myopic anisometropia, and > or =1 D hyperopic anisometropia and ocular disease affecting vision., Methods: Refractive error was determined by cycloplegic subjective refraction. Students were randomly assigned to receive RMS or custom spectacles (CS) and assessed after 1 month of use. We required 175 students to complete in each arm to be able to measure a 15% difference in compliance., Main Outcome Measures: Compliance with spectacles lens wear, patterns of use, vision, symptoms, and perceived value., Results: Screening identified 965 of 4607 (20.9%) students with reduced distance vision; 212 of the 965 (22.0%) refused evaluation and 187 of the 965 (20.8%) had <1 D of SE refractive error. Sixty-one (6.3%) were referred for further evaluation and the remaining 495 (51.3%) participated. Social, demographic, and ocular parameters were similar in the 2 groups. Average SE refractive error was -2.57+/-1.31 (mean value +/- standard deviation [SD]). Spectacle vision (Snellen acuity, mean +/- SD) was worse with RMS in the eye with lower SE (20/25(-0.5)+/-0.9 lines vs 20/25(+1)+/-0.7 lines; P = 0.004) and higher SE (20/25(-2)+/-1.2 lines vs 20/25(+1)+/-0.8; P<0.001). There were no differences (P>0.05) in the rate of use (94.3% vs 92.2%), wearing to the 1-month visit (46.9% vs 51.5%), planned use (93.3% vs 93.7%), value (89.5% vs 91.7% "moderate or high value or most valued possession"), or symptoms (blur, 21.1% vs 19.4% [P = 0.8] and other symptoms [P>0.2])., Conclusions: Although visual acuity was better with CS, no difference was found in acceptability in this population of students with predominantly simple myopic refractive error. This study supports the use of RMS in a school-based refractive services program, saving costs and improving the logistics of service delivery.