美国视力筛查指南的比较分析

N. Brown, John A. Musser VI
{"title":"美国视力筛查指南的比较分析","authors":"N. Brown, John A. Musser VI","doi":"10.9734/or/2022/v17i330259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: To assess current school vision screening guidelines of states spread across different regions of the United States to inform quality guideline parameters and help combat preventable pediatric vision loss. \nStudy Design:  Cross-sectional comparative analysis. \nMethodology: States were first ordered alphabetically and then selected using an online random number generator (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, California). States were selected until 13 available screening guidelines were identified. Each guideline was assessed using a 10-point multi-factorial scoring criteria detailed in Table 1. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated for each scoring criteria using Microsoft® Excel (version 16.63.1, Redmond, WA). \nResults: Most state guidelines included what ages to screen (84.62%, 11/13), how to screen (84.62%, 11/13), and how to follow-up with students to arrange (92.31%, 12/13) and confirm eye care delivery (76.92%, 10/13). Sadly, only the minority of state guidelines described at least two main causes of amblyopia (46.15%, 6/13), and a less than one-third of school nurse vision screening guidelines discussed the window of time to save vision in amblyopia (30.77%, 4/12). Worse yet, very few nurse vision screening guidelines explained that subjectively a child can’t tell you if they are at risk of developing amblyopia (15.38%, 2/13), or included two treatments for amblyopia (7.69%, 1/13) in the vision screening educational program. \nConclusion: This study found that most of the assessed vision screening guidelines outlined the process of screening and follow-up but failed to emphasize why screening is important, causes, and treatment options for amblyopia. Gaps in these training guidelines may contribute to delayed recognition and treatment for amblyopia¾the leading cause of irreversible pediatric vision loss. Further improvements to vision screening guidelines are needed for school nurses and paraprofessional staff in the majority of the states evaluated.","PeriodicalId":287685,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Vision Screening Guidelines in the United States\",\"authors\":\"N. Brown, John A. Musser VI\",\"doi\":\"10.9734/or/2022/v17i330259\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aims: To assess current school vision screening guidelines of states spread across different regions of the United States to inform quality guideline parameters and help combat preventable pediatric vision loss. \\nStudy Design:  Cross-sectional comparative analysis. \\nMethodology: States were first ordered alphabetically and then selected using an online random number generator (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, California). States were selected until 13 available screening guidelines were identified. Each guideline was assessed using a 10-point multi-factorial scoring criteria detailed in Table 1. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated for each scoring criteria using Microsoft® Excel (version 16.63.1, Redmond, WA). \\nResults: Most state guidelines included what ages to screen (84.62%, 11/13), how to screen (84.62%, 11/13), and how to follow-up with students to arrange (92.31%, 12/13) and confirm eye care delivery (76.92%, 10/13). Sadly, only the minority of state guidelines described at least two main causes of amblyopia (46.15%, 6/13), and a less than one-third of school nurse vision screening guidelines discussed the window of time to save vision in amblyopia (30.77%, 4/12). Worse yet, very few nurse vision screening guidelines explained that subjectively a child can’t tell you if they are at risk of developing amblyopia (15.38%, 2/13), or included two treatments for amblyopia (7.69%, 1/13) in the vision screening educational program. \\nConclusion: This study found that most of the assessed vision screening guidelines outlined the process of screening and follow-up but failed to emphasize why screening is important, causes, and treatment options for amblyopia. Gaps in these training guidelines may contribute to delayed recognition and treatment for amblyopia¾the leading cause of irreversible pediatric vision loss. Further improvements to vision screening guidelines are needed for school nurses and paraprofessional staff in the majority of the states evaluated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":287685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9734/or/2022/v17i330259\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/or/2022/v17i330259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估美国不同地区各州目前的学校视力筛查指南,为质量指南参数提供信息,并帮助防治可预防的儿童视力丧失。研究设计:横断面比较分析。方法:各州首先按字母顺序排序,然后使用在线随机数生成器(Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, California)进行选择。在确定了13个可用的筛查指南之前,选择了各州。每个指南使用表1中详细的10分多因子评分标准进行评估。使用Microsoft®Excel (version 16.63.1, Redmond, WA)计算每个评分标准的描述性统计(均值和标准差)。结果:大多数州指南包括筛查年龄(84.62%,11/13)、如何筛查(84.62%,11/13)、如何随访学生安排(92.31%,12/13)和确认眼保健服务(76.92%,10/13)。可悲的是,只有少数国家指南描述了至少两种弱视的主要原因(46.15%,6/13),不到三分之一的学校护士视力筛查指南讨论了弱视患者拯救视力的时间窗口(30.77%,4/12)。更糟糕的是,很少有护士视力筛查指南解释说,孩子主观上不能告诉你他们是否有患弱视的风险(15.38%,2/13),或者在视力筛查教育计划中包括两种弱视治疗(7.69%,1/13)。结论:本研究发现,大多数评估的视力筛查指南概述了筛查和随访的过程,但未能强调为什么筛查是重要的,弱视的原因和治疗方案。弱视是儿童视力不可逆丧失的主要原因,这些培训指南的缺失可能导致对弱视的识别和治疗延迟。在大多数接受评估的州,需要进一步改进学校护士和辅助专业人员的视力筛查指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative Analysis of Vision Screening Guidelines in the United States
Aims: To assess current school vision screening guidelines of states spread across different regions of the United States to inform quality guideline parameters and help combat preventable pediatric vision loss. Study Design:  Cross-sectional comparative analysis. Methodology: States were first ordered alphabetically and then selected using an online random number generator (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, California). States were selected until 13 available screening guidelines were identified. Each guideline was assessed using a 10-point multi-factorial scoring criteria detailed in Table 1. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated for each scoring criteria using Microsoft® Excel (version 16.63.1, Redmond, WA). Results: Most state guidelines included what ages to screen (84.62%, 11/13), how to screen (84.62%, 11/13), and how to follow-up with students to arrange (92.31%, 12/13) and confirm eye care delivery (76.92%, 10/13). Sadly, only the minority of state guidelines described at least two main causes of amblyopia (46.15%, 6/13), and a less than one-third of school nurse vision screening guidelines discussed the window of time to save vision in amblyopia (30.77%, 4/12). Worse yet, very few nurse vision screening guidelines explained that subjectively a child can’t tell you if they are at risk of developing amblyopia (15.38%, 2/13), or included two treatments for amblyopia (7.69%, 1/13) in the vision screening educational program. Conclusion: This study found that most of the assessed vision screening guidelines outlined the process of screening and follow-up but failed to emphasize why screening is important, causes, and treatment options for amblyopia. Gaps in these training guidelines may contribute to delayed recognition and treatment for amblyopia¾the leading cause of irreversible pediatric vision loss. Further improvements to vision screening guidelines are needed for school nurses and paraprofessional staff in the majority of the states evaluated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Drug-induced Cornea Verticillata: A Report of 2 Cases Sustainable Development Goals and Eye Care in Nigeria Clinical Profile of Ocular Trauma at a Tertiary Care Hospital Amplitude of Accommodation in Young Caucasian Adults in Greece Antimicrobial and Immunostimulatory Effects of Senna occidentalis Ethanolic Extract against Aspergillus flavus-Induced Mycotic Keratitis: A Promising Therapeutic Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1