Standard Standard

Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities : an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial. / Bray, Nathan; Brand, Andrew; Taylor, John; Hoare, Zoe; Dickinson, Christine; Edwards, Rhiannon T.

In: Acta ophthalmologica, Vol. 95, No. 5, 11.07.2017, p. e415-e423.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

HarvardHarvard

APA

CBE

MLA

VancouverVancouver

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities

T2 - an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial

AU - Bray, Nathan

AU - Brand, Andrew

AU - Taylor, John

AU - Hoare, Zoe

AU - Dickinson, Christine

AU - Edwards, Rhiannon T

N1 - © 2016 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation and European Association for Vision & Eye Research.

PY - 2017/7/11

Y1 - 2017/7/11

N2 - PURPOSE: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices compared with optical low vision aids (LVAs), for improving near vision visual function, quality of life and well-being of people with a visual impairment.METHODS: An AB/BA randomized crossover trial design was used. Eighty-two participants completed the study. Participants were current users of optical LVAs who had not tried a p-EVES device before and had a stable visual impairment. The trial intervention was the addition of a p-EVES device to the participant's existing optical LVA(s) for 2 months, and the control intervention was optical LVA use only, for 2 months. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were conducted from a societal perspective.RESULTS: The mean cost of the p-EVES intervention was £448. Carer costs were £30 (4.46 hr) less for the p-EVES intervention compared with the LVA only control. The mean difference in total costs was £417. Bootstrapping gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £736 (95% CI £481 to £1525) for a 7% improvement in near vision visual function. Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ranged from £56 991 (lower 95% CI = £19 801) to £66 490 (lower 95% CI = £23 055). Sensitivity analysis varying the commercial price of the p-EVES device reduced ICERs by up to 75%, with cost per QALYs falling below £30 000.CONCLUSION: Portable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices are likely to be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources for improving near vision visual function, but this does not translate into cost-effective improvements in quality of life, capability or well-being.

AB - PURPOSE: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices compared with optical low vision aids (LVAs), for improving near vision visual function, quality of life and well-being of people with a visual impairment.METHODS: An AB/BA randomized crossover trial design was used. Eighty-two participants completed the study. Participants were current users of optical LVAs who had not tried a p-EVES device before and had a stable visual impairment. The trial intervention was the addition of a p-EVES device to the participant's existing optical LVA(s) for 2 months, and the control intervention was optical LVA use only, for 2 months. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were conducted from a societal perspective.RESULTS: The mean cost of the p-EVES intervention was £448. Carer costs were £30 (4.46 hr) less for the p-EVES intervention compared with the LVA only control. The mean difference in total costs was £417. Bootstrapping gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £736 (95% CI £481 to £1525) for a 7% improvement in near vision visual function. Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ranged from £56 991 (lower 95% CI = £19 801) to £66 490 (lower 95% CI = £23 055). Sensitivity analysis varying the commercial price of the p-EVES device reduced ICERs by up to 75%, with cost per QALYs falling below £30 000.CONCLUSION: Portable electronic vision enhancement system (p-EVES) devices are likely to be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources for improving near vision visual function, but this does not translate into cost-effective improvements in quality of life, capability or well-being.

KW - Aged

KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis

KW - Cross-Over Studies

KW - Equipment Design

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Image Processing, Computer-Assisted

KW - Male

KW - Myopia

KW - Optical Devices

KW - Quality of Life

KW - Reading

KW - Sensory Aids

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Vision, Low

KW - Visual Acuity

KW - Visually Impaired Persons

KW - Journal Article

KW - Randomized Controlled Trial

U2 - 10.1111/aos.13255

DO - 10.1111/aos.13255

M3 - Article

C2 - 27682985

VL - 95

SP - e415-e423

JO - Acta ophthalmologica

JF - Acta ophthalmologica

SN - 1755-375X

IS - 5

ER -