Reducing visual deficits caused by refractive errors in school and preschool children: results of a pilot school program in the Andean region of Apurimac, Peru

Figures & data

Table 1 Auditing process of vision screening outcomes and understanding reached by participants

	Teachers (n)			Children (n)			Clinical findings
	Invited	Trained	Completed report	Screened	Referred	Attended	N	RE	Prevalence CI 95%
Group 1 (aged 3–5)	20	14	11	213	31	22	204	13	6.2 [2.82–9.52]
Group 2 (aged 5–11)	20	12	10	174	37	23	160	11	6.9 [2.64–11.11]
Monitor:	Planning>		Teacher performance		>Access		>Prevalence of URE
			Perspectives
			Coordinators				Teacher participants
• R1: 35% of invited teachers did not attend training			- Reinforce communication channels between teachers and coordinators. - Motivate teachers to attend to their own visual needs as some of them may need an eye examination.				- Consider school schedule to avoid overlapping with other academic events. - Acknowledge teacher participation with a certificate to reinforce curriculum. - Confirm attendance in advance.
• R2: 20% of files provided were incomplete or contained errors			- Methodology and data management deserves more attention in the training process. - Simplify the design to avoid irrelevant data and focus on fundamental information: visual acuity results, pupil findings, and parental information.				- Extend the duration of theoretical and practical training.
• R3: One in three referred children did not attend their clinical eye examination.			- Facilitate attendance at the eye hospital by considering this when planning the program and estimating the budget. - Confirmation of parents having been informed.				- Provide shared transport to lower costs. - Invite proactive parents to attend the training, in order to raise awareness in the community. - Include study activities as part of the program to encourage the use of eyeglasses and promote their acceptance among children.

RE, refractive error; URE, uncorrected refractive error; R1, R2, R3, results discussed.

Table 2 Results of vision screening performed by teachers

	Group 1: aged 3–5		Group 2: aged 5–11
	%	CI 95%	%	CI 95%
Specificity	95.8	92.8–98.7	93.0	89.0–96.9
PPV	59.1	36.3–81.9	47.8	25.2–70.4

CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value.