» Articles » PMID: 38224327

Capabilities and Limitations of Student-Led Free Vision Screening Programs in the United States

Abstract

Purpose: The Consortium of Student-Led Eye Clinics (CSLEC), founded in 2021, administered a comprehensive survey to document the types of services, most common diagnoses, and follow-up care protocols offered by student-led free vision screening programs (SLFVSP) in the United States.

Methods: An 81-question institutional review board (IRB)-approved survey was administered to student-led vision screening eye clinics from October 1, 2022 to February 24, 2023.

Results: Sixteen SLFVSPs were included in the final analysis, of which 81% (n = 13) conducted variations of fundoscopic examinations and 75% (n = 12) measured intraocular pressure. Cataracts and diabetic retinopathy were reported as the most frequent diagnoses by the majority of SLFVSPs (n = 9, 56%); non-mobile SLFVSPs more commonly reported cataract as a frequent diagnosis (P < 0.05). Most patients screened at participating programs were uninsured or met federal poverty guidelines. Prescription glasses were offered by 56% of the programs (n = 9). SLFVSPs that directly scheduled follow-up appointments reported higher attendance rates (66.5%) than those that only sent referrals (20%). Transportation was the most cited barrier for follow-up appointment attendance.

Conclusions: SLFVSPs, one community vision screening initiative subtype, vary significantly in scope and capabilities of identifying vision threatening disease. The follow-up infrastructure is not uniformly robust and represents a key target for improving care delivery to at-risk populations.

Translational Relevance: The CSLEC aims to develop a consensus-based standardization for the scope of screening services, offer guidelines for diagnostic criteria, promote real-time data stewardship, and identify means to improve follow-up care mechanisms in member communities.

Citing Articles

Validation of a Novel Low-Cost Glaucoma Risk Calculator for Community-Based Screening in High-Risk Populations.

Grimes K, Madu C, Carrington C, Laroche D Clin Ophthalmol. 2025; 19:357-369.

PMID: 39926312 PMC: 11804874. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S500509.


Recommendations for the optimization of student led free vision screening programs.

Devanathan N, Scheive M, Selvam A, Nawash B, Murphy A, Morrow M BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):1432.

PMID: 39695498 PMC: 11653908. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-06396-w.

References
1.
Bradshaw J, Peterson T, Parker L, Richards Z, Skidmore C, Brighton K . A Prospective Analysis of the Simplified Student Sight Savers Program on Open-Angle Glaucoma Cost Burden in Underserved Communities. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(10). PMC: 9145015. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11102903. View

2.
Burton E, Assi L, Vongsachang H, Swenor B, Srikumaran D, Woreta F . Demographics, clinical interests, and ophthalmology skills confidence of medical student volunteers and non-volunteers in an extracurricular community vision screening service-learning program. BMC Med Educ. 2022; 22(1):143. PMC: 8894556. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03194-0. View

3.
Okaka Y, Meah Y, Fallar R, Chadha N . Ophthalmology Services at Student-Run Free Clinics: A National Survey. J Natl Med Assoc. 2021; 113(4):431-435. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnma.2021.02.004. View

4.
Quigley H, Park C, Tracey P, Pollack I . Community screening for eye disease by laypersons: the Hoffberger program. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002; 133(3):386-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(01)01380-0. View

5.
Smith S, Thomas 3rd R, Cruz M, Griggs R, Moscato B, Ferrara A . Presence and characteristics of student-run free clinics in medical schools. JAMA. 2014; 312(22):2407-10. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.16066. View