Marmamula Srinivas, Khanna Rohit C, Mettla Asha Latha, Pehere Niranjan K, Keeffe Jill E, Yameneni Dushyant K, Rao Gullapalli N
Allen Foster Community Eye Health Research Centre, Gullapalli Pratibha Rao - International Centre for Advancement of Rural Eye Care, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Clin Exp Optom. 2018 Jul;101(4):553-559. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12559. Epub 2017 Jun 28.
To compare the agreement and diagnostic accuracy of vision screening conducted by trained community eye-health workers (CEHWs) and teachers with reference to vision technicians in Movva Mandal (sub-district) in Krishna District in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.
As part of a large epidemiological study on visual impairment in children, vision screening was conducted in all the schools in a sub-district. The children were screened using a screening card with 6/12 tumbling E optotypes by trained CEHWs, teachers and a vision technician. Teachers were included if they had screened at least 100 children and had at least five children identified with visual impairment.
Of a total 6,197 children from 75 schools, 4,929 children were screened by all three categories of examiners (one vision technician, five CEHWs and 79 teachers). The overall agreement between the vision technician and CEHWs was 0.84 (95 per cent CI: 0.79-0.9) with a range of 0.77-0.9. Overall sensitivity of CEHWs to detect visual impairment was 83.3 per cent (95 per cent CI: 73.6-90.6) with a range of 71.4-87.1 per cent. Overall agreement of the five teachers with the vision technician was 0.81 (95 per cent CI: 0.74-0.88) with a range of 0.32-0.92. The overall sensitivity of teachers to detect vision problem was 72.3 per cent (95 per cent CI: 61.4-81.6) with a range from 20 per cent to 85.7 per cent and specificity was near 100 per cent.
There was no significant difference in the agreement and diagnostic accuracy of CEHWs and teachers compared to those of the vision technician. There was a large variability among teachers, which needs to be considered in school vision screening programs.
在印度安得拉邦克里希纳区莫瓦曼达尔(街区),比较经过培训的社区眼保健工作者(CEHWs)和教师与视力检测技术员进行视力筛查的一致性和诊断准确性。
作为一项关于儿童视力损害的大型流行病学研究的一部分,在一个街区的所有学校开展了视力筛查。使用带有6/12翻转E视标的筛查卡片,由经过培训的社区眼保健工作者、教师和一名视力检测技术员对儿童进行筛查。若教师筛查了至少100名儿童且至少识别出5名有视力损害的儿童,则将其纳入研究。
在来自75所学校的总共6197名儿童中,所有三类检查人员(一名视力检测技术员、五名社区眼保健工作者和79名教师)对4929名儿童进行了筛查。视力检测技术员与社区眼保健工作者之间的总体一致性为0.84(95%置信区间:0.79 - 0.9),范围为0.77 - 0.9。社区眼保健工作者检测视力损害的总体敏感性为83.3%(95%置信区间:73.6 - 90.6),范围为71.4 - 87.1%。五名教师与视力检测技术员的总体一致性为0.81(95%置信区间:0.74 - 0.88),范围为0.32 - 0.92。教师检测视力问题的总体敏感性为72.3%(95%置信区间:61.4 - 81.6),范围为20%至85.7%,特异性接近100%。
与视力检测技术员相比,社区眼保健工作者和教师在一致性和诊断准确性方面没有显著差异。教师之间存在很大差异,在学校视力筛查项目中需要加以考虑。