Smartphone-based screening for visual impairment in Kenyan school children: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Hillary K Rono, Andrew Bastawrous, David Macleod, Emmanuel Wanjala, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Helen A Weiss, Matthew J Burton, Hillary K Rono, Andrew Bastawrous, David Macleod, Emmanuel Wanjala, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Helen A Weiss, Matthew J Burton

Abstract

Background: Childhood visual impairment is a major public health concern that requires effective screening and early intervention. We investigated the effectiveness of Peek school eye health, a smartphone-based sight test and referral system (comprising Peek Acuity test, sight simulation referral cards, and short message service [SMS] reminders), versus standard care (Snellen's Tumbling-E card and written referral).

Methods: We initially compared the performance of both the Snellen Tumbling-E card and the Peek Acuity test to a standard backlit EDTRS LogMAR visual acuity test chart. We did a cluster randomised controlled trial to compare the Peek school eye health system with standard school screening care, delivered by school teachers. Schools in Trans Nzoia County, Kenya, were eligible if they did not have an active screening programme already in place. Schools were randomly allocated (1:1) to either the Peek school eye health screening and referral programmes (Peek group) or the standard care screening and referral programme (standard group). In both groups, teachers tested vision of children in years 1-8. Pupils with visual impairment (defined as vision less than 6/12 in either eye) were referred to hospital for treatment. Referred children from the standard group received a written hospital referral letter. Participants and their teachers in the Peek group were shown their simulated sight on a smartphone and given a printout of this simulation with the same hospital details as the standard referral letter to present to their parent or guardian. They also received regular SMS reminders to attend the hospital. The primary outcome was the proportion of referred children who reported to hospital within 8 weeks of referral. Primary analysis was by intention to treat, with the intervention effect estimated using odds ratios. This trial is registered with Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201503001049236.

Findings: Sensitivity was similar for the Peek test and the standard test (77% [95% CI 64·8-86·5] vs 75% [63·1-85·2]). Specificity was lower for the Peek test than the standard test (91% [95% CI 89·3-92·1] vs 97·4% [96·6-98·1]). Trial recruitment occurred between March 2, 2015, and March 13, 2015. Of the 295 eligible public primary schools in Trans Nzoia County, 50 schools were randomly selected and assigned to either the Peek group (n=25) or the standard group (n=25). 10 579 children were assessed for visual impairment in the Peek group and 10 284 children in the standard group. Visual impairment was identified in 531 (5%) of 10 579 children in the Peek group and 366 (4%) of 10 284 children in the standard care group. The proportion of pupils identified as having visual impairment who attended their hospital referral was significantly higher in the Peek group (285 [54%] of 531) than in the standard group (82 [22%] of 366; odds ratio 7·35 [95% CI 3·49-15·47]; p<0·0001).

Interpretation: The Peek school eye health system increased adherence to hospital referral for visual impairment assessment compared with the standard approach among school children. This indicates the potential of this technology package to improve uptake of services and provide real-time visibility of health service delivery to help target resources.

Funding: Seeing is Believing, Operation Eyesight Universal, Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, and Wellcome Trust.

Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Vision screening methods used in school children (A) Standard screening with a Tumbling-E card. (B) Peek Acuity screening app used on a smartphone. (C) Peek referral card showing the vision of the child and the referral instructions. (D) Parent receiving an SMS message with instructions after screening. SMS=short message service.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Location of primary schools in each study group in Trans Nzoia County, in relation to Kitale hospital, Kenya
Figure 3
Figure 3
Trial profile
Figure 4
Figure 4
Kaplan-Meier analysis of time from screening to attendance at the hospital ophthalmology clinic SMS=short message service.

References

    1. Toledo CC, Paiva AP, Camilo GB, Maior MR, Leite IC, Guerra MR. Early detection of visual impairment and its relation to academic performance. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2010;56:415–419.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Economic costs associated with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, and vision impairment—United States, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004;53:57–59.
    1. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:614–618.
    1. WHO . WHO; Geneva: 2014. Blindness and visual impairment. Fact sheet number 282. Updated August, 2014.
    1. Barasa E, Otieno SA, Karimurio J. The prevalence and pattern of visual impairment and blindness among Primary School pupils in Kitale Municipality, Kenya. JOECSA. 2013;17:66–69.
    1. Muma M, Kimani K, Kariuki W. Prevalence of refractive errors in primary school children of a rural district of Kenya. JOECSA. 2013;13:48–51.
    1. Murthy GV, Gupta SK, Ellwein LB. Refractive error in children in an urban population in New Delhi. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:623–631.
    1. He M, Zeng J, Liu Y, Xu J, Pokharel GP, Ellwein LB. Refractive error and visual impairment in urban children in southern china. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:793–799.
    1. Gilbert C, Foster A. Childhood blindness in the context of VISION 2020—the right to sight. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:227–232.
    1. Stewart-Brown SL, Haslum M. Screening of vision in school: could we do better by doing less? BMJ. 1988;297:1111–1113.
    1. Ministry of Education. Republic of Kenya . Ministry of Education; Nairobi: 2009. The national special needs education policy framework. July, 2009.
    1. Syed A, Polack S, Eusebio C. Predictors of attendance and barriers to cataract surgery in Kenya, Bangladesh and the Philippines. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:1660–1667.
    1. Bastawrous A, Armstrong MJ. Mobile health use in low- and high-income countries: an overview of the peer-reviewed literature. J R Soc Med. 2013;106:130–142.
    1. Deloitte. Groupe Speciale Mobile Association . Groupe Speciale Mobile Association; London: 2012. Sub-Saharan Africa mobile observatory 2012.
    1. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L. The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001363.
    1. Bastawrous A, Rono HK, Livingstone IT. Development and validation of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (peek acuity) for clinical practice and community-based fieldwork. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:930–937.
    1. Lodhia V, Karanja S, Lees S, Bastawrous A. Acceptability, usability, and views on deployment of peek, a mobile phone mhealth intervention for eye care in Kenya: qualitative study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016;4:e30.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661.
    1. Raab GM, Butcher I. Balance in cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2001;20:351–365.
    1. Carter BR, Hood K. Balance algorithm for cluster randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:65.
    1. Gilbert C, Foster A, Negrel AD, Thylefors B. Childhood blindness: a new form for recording causes of visual loss in children. Bull World Health Organ. 1993;71:485–489.
    1. Schoenfeld D. Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika. 1982;69:239–241.
    1. Black JM, Jacobs RJ, Phillips G. An assessment of the iPad as a testing platform for distance visual acuity in adults. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002730.
    1. Siderov J, Tiu AL. Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmol. 1999;77:673–676.
    1. Arditi A, Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:120–129.
    1. Bastawrous A, Giardini ME, Bolster NM. Clinical validation of a smartphone-based adapter for optic disc imaging in Kenya. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:151–158.
    1. Morjaria P, Bastawrous A, Murthy GV, Evans J, Gilbert C. Effectiveness of a novel mobile health education intervention (Peek) on spectacle wear among children in India: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:168.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit