The cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for amblyopia: a preliminary report

S Schlichtherle1, A Gandjour, A Neugebauer

  • 1Institute of Health Economics & Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Köln, Germany. Stefanie.Schlichtherle@medizin.uni-koeln.de

Strabismus
|March 23, 2001
PubMed

Insights

The most cost-effective amblyopia (lazy eye) screening strategies involve ophthalmologists examining high-risk infants or all infants up to age one. Screening high-risk infants is cheaper per case but detects fewer children than screening all infants.

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Public Health
  • Health Economics

Background:

  • Amblyopia, or lazy eye, is a leading cause of preventable vision impairment in children.
  • Early detection and intervention are crucial for effective amblyopia treatment.
  • The cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies remains a key consideration for healthcare systems.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the cost-effectiveness of five different amblyopia screening strategies for various age groups.
  • To identify the most economically viable approaches for detecting amblyopia from a health insurance perspective.

Main Methods:

  • A decision-analytical model was employed to evaluate screening strategies.
  • The analysis considered the perspective of health insurance funds.
  • Cost per detected case of amblyopia was a primary metric.

Main Results:

  • Costs per detected amblyopia case ranged from 613 Euro to 1534 Euro.
  • The most cost-effective strategies included screening high-risk children up to age one by ophthalmologists and screening all children up to age one by ophthalmologists.
  • Screening high-risk children identified fewer cases (one-third) compared to screening all children but incurred lower average costs per detected case.

Conclusions:

  • Targeted screening of high-risk infants by ophthalmologists offers a cost-effective approach to amblyopia detection.
  • Universal screening of all infants up to age one by ophthalmologists is also a cost-effective strategy, albeit with higher overall costs per case.
  • The choice between high-risk and universal screening depends on balancing detection rates with cost-efficiency for health insurers.

Related Concept Videos