Premium
Portable electronic vision enhancement systems in comparison with optical magnifiers for near vision activities: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized crossover trial
Author(s) -
Bray Nathan,
Brand Andrew,
Taylor John,
Hoare Zoe,
Dickinson Christine,
Edwards Rhian T.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/aos.13255
Subject(s) - randomized controlled trial , crossover study , medicine , quality of life (healthcare) , intervention (counseling) , visual acuity , artificial intelligence , optometry , computer science , ophthalmology , surgery , alternative medicine , nursing , pathology , psychiatry , placebo
Abstract Purpose To determine the incremental cost‐effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p‐ EVES ) devices compared with optical low vision aids ( LVA s), 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 LVA s 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 QALY s 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.