Accuracy of Trained Community-based Rehabilitation Volunteers in Identification and Appropriate Referral of Adults with Perceived Visual Disability in an Urban-slum Setting in Southern India. (2nd September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Amritanand, Anika; Paul, Padma; Nagarajan, S Guru; Doss, Prem Ashirvadam; Yovan, Parmanandan; John, Sushil
• Is Part Of: Ophthalmic epidemiology. Volume 27:Number 5(2020)
• Page Start: 344
• Page End: 353
• Publication Date: 2020-09-02
• Subjects: perceived visual disability -- questionnaire -- CBR volunteers -- Sensitivity -- Specificity; Blindness -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Eye -- Diseases -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Ophthalmology -- Periodicals; 614.5997
• DOI: 10.1080/09286586.2020.1755443
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0928-6586

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Purpose: The integration of primary eyecare into existing primary healthcare systems requires simple yet effective tools that do not overburden the grass-root level worker. The objective of this study was to test the accuracy of a questionnaire-based tool administered by trained community-based rehabilitation volunteers (CBRVs) in identifying persons with visual disability, proportions accessing referral pathway and barriers to uptake of eyecare services. Methods: CBRVs working in the urban-slum service area of a teaching hospital were trained in administering a questionnaire-based tool derived from the World Health Organization (WHO) "Training in the community for people with disabilities" to a responsible adult member of the household. Post-training, they screened and referred adults with perceived visual problems. This tool was tested against two reference standards: (i) history of visual disability elicited by ophthalmologist; (ii) pre-set visual acuity and diagnosis criteria. Results: Ten CBRVs screened 950 individuals of whom 805 (84.7%) were examined by an optometrist and ophthalmologist. Sensitivity and specificity of this method were 75% (95% CI 72–78%), 95.8% (95% CI 94–98%) respectively, using history and 60.2% (95% CI 57–63%), 91.8% (95% CI 90–94%) using clinical criteria as reference standard. Referral pathway was used by 91/221 (41.2%) referred individuals. The commonest barriers to accessing eye care were 'did not feel the need' (32.2%) and 'busy with work/household responsibilities' (30.2%). Conclusions: This questionnaire-based tool administered by grass-root level health workers to a responsible adult member of the family may be a promising screening method for identification and appropriate referral of persons with visual disability in the community.