• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 1
  • Tagged with
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

Addressing inequalities in eye health with subsidies and increased fees for General Ophthalmic Services in socio-economically deprived communities: A sensitivity analysis

Shickle, D., Todkill, D., Chisholm, Catharine M., Rughani, S., Griffin, M., Cassels-Brown, A., May, H., Slade, S.V., Davey, Christopher J. January 2015 (has links)
Objectives: Poor knowledge of eye health, concerns about the cost of spectacles, mistrust of optometrists and limited geographical access in socio-economically deprived areas are barriers to accessing regular eye examinations and result in low uptake and subsequent late presentation to ophthalmology clinics. Personal Medical Services (PMS) were introduced in the late 1990s to provide locally negotiated solutions to problems associated with inequalities in access to primary care. An equivalent approach to delivery of optometric services could address inequalities in the uptake of eye examinations. Study design: One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses. Methods: Variations in assumptions were included in the models for equipment and accommodation costs, uptake and length of appointments. The sensitivity analyses thresholds were cost-per-person tested below the GOS1 fee paid by the NHS and achieving break-even between income and expenditure, assuming no cross-subsidy from profits from sales of optical appliances. Results: Cost per test ranged from £24.01 to £64.80 and subsidy required varied from £14,490 to £108,046. Unused capacity utilised for local enhanced service schemes such as glaucoma referral refinement reduced the subsidy needed. Conclusions: In order to support the financial viability of primary eye care in socio-economically deprived communities, income is required from additional subsidies or from sources other than eye examinations, such as ophthalmic or other optometric community services. This would require a significant shift of activity from secondary to primary care locations. The subsidy required could also be justified by the utility gain from earlier detection of preventable sight loss. / Yorkshire Eye Research, NHS Leeds and RNIB

Page generated in 0.1261 seconds