IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i14p8655-d864135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Toshihiko Matsuo

    (Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in Health Systems, Okayama University, Okayama 700-8558, Japan
    Department of Ophthalmology, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama 700-8558, Japan)

  • Chie Matsuo

    (Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in Health Systems, Okayama University, Okayama 700-8558, Japan)

  • Masami Kayano

    (Okayama City Government Health Office, Okayama 700-8546, Japan)

  • Aya Mitsufuji

    (Okayama City Government Health Office, Okayama 700-8546, Japan)

  • Chiyori Satou

    (Okayama City Government Health Office, Okayama 700-8546, Japan)

  • Hiroaki Matsuoka

    (Okayama City Government Health Office, Okayama 700-8546, Japan)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Toshihiko Matsuo & Chie Matsuo & Masami Kayano & Aya Mitsufuji & Chiyori Satou & Hiroaki Matsuoka, 2022. "Photorefraction with Spot Vision Screener versus Visual Acuity Testing as Community-Based Preschool Vision Screening at the Age of 3.5 Years in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8655-:d:864135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8655/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8655/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paweł Oszczędłowski & Przemysław Raczkiewicz & Piotr Więsyk & Kinga Brzuszkiewicz & Maria Rapa & Anna Matysik-Woźniak & Grzegorz Zieliński & Maksymilian Onyszkiewicz & Krzysztof Marek Rękas & Inga Mak, 2023. "The Incidence and Severity of Myopia in the Population of Medical Students and Its Dependence on Various Demographic Factors and Vision Hygiene Habits," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-12, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8655-:d:864135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.