Background: Equity of access to eye care in childhood remains poorly researched, and most studies report data on utilisation without any objective measure of clinical need.
Participants/method: 8271 participants from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a longitudinal birth cohort, were seen at age 7, when they underwent a comprehensive eye examination and details of family history of eye conditions, vision problems and contact with eye-care services were obtained.
Results: 2931 (35.4%) children had been in contact with an eye-care specialist, and 1452 (17.6%) had received vision screening. Compared with social class I, the prevalence of eye conditions was higher in the lower groups (social class IIIM, IV, V) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.46). However, children from lower socio-economic status groups were less likely to see an eye-care specialist (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00) or to use screening services (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98).
Discussion/conclusion: The differences in the trends between socio-economic groups in eye conditions and utilisation of services suggest inequitable access to services. These data highlight the limitations of community-based preschool vision screening, which fails to abolish this inequity. It is important that future research explores the reasons behind these patterns. Compulsory school-entry vision screening, as recommended by the National Screening Committee and the Hall Report may redress this differential uptake of services.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding: The Research and Development Directorate of the Southwest Regional Health Authority specifically funded this collection of the vision data, presented here.
Competing interests: None.
Ethics approval: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ALSPAC Law and Ethics Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees.
Patient consent: Patient consent was obtained.