Surveillance of contact lens related microbial keratitis in Australia and New Zealand : multi-source case-capture and cost-effectiveness

Keay, Lisa, Edwards, Katie P., Brian, Garry, & Stapleton, Fiona (2007) Surveillance of contact lens related microbial keratitis in Australia and New Zealand : multi-source case-capture and cost-effectiveness. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 14(6), pp. 343-350.

View at publisher

Abstract

To evaluate a multi-source surveillance system used in a 12-month study of contact lens related microbial keratitis in Australia and New Zealand. Methods: All practicing ophthalmologists and optometrists were surveyed on 6 occasions over 12 months via post or the Internet. Participation was defined as reporting at least once during the study period and the response rates represented those who responded on all six occasions. Cases were also detected through hospital audit. All ophthalmologists and a sub-group of optometrists were contacted by phone to elicit a response (active surveillance). The utilization and cost-effectiveness of active surveillance were compared to reports received via the post or the Internet. Case ascertainment and cost-effectiveness were compared for different sources of case capture. Results: The rate of participation for ophthalmologists was 95.8% (711/742) and 88.5% (657/742) responded for all reporting periods. Active surveillance was required for 63% (416/661) of responses in Australia (AU) and 73% (59/81) in New Zealand (NZ) at AUD23.14 per practitioner. Internet reporting was more widely used in New Zealand (NZ: 31% vs. AU:17%, p = 0.006) and was the most cost effective mode of reporting (AUD1.43 per practitioner). Postal reporting (AUD; AU:3.54,NZ:9.84 per practitioner) was under-utilized (3% of responses). Average start-up costs comprised 50% of study costs followed by active follow-up (42%), postal (6%) and Internet reporting (2%). Ophthalmologists (50.4%, 144/286 of cases) were the most cost-effective source of cases, followed by hospital audit (24.5%, 70/286) and optometry (25.1%, 72/286). Duplicate reporting occurred in 13% (37/286) of cases. Conclusions: High response rates were obtained by substantial resource commitment to active follow-up. Internet reporting was widely used and was cost-effective. Hospital audit and supplementary reporting by optometry were used for the first time in a study of contact lens related microbial keratitis, and contributed significantly to case capture.

Impact and interest:

10 citations in Scopus
Search Google Scholar™
9 citations in Web of Science®

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

ID Code: 20546
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
Additional Information: Accession Number: 13421082; Authors: Keay, Lisa 1 Edwards, Katie 2 Brian, Garry 3 Stapleton, Fiona 1; Author Affiliations: 1: Institute for Eye Research, Sydney, Australia,Vision Cooperative Research Center, Sydney, Australia,School of Optometry and Vision Science University of South New Wales, Sydney, Australia 2: Vision Cooperative Research Center, Sydney, Australia,School of Optometry and Vision Science University of South New Wales, Sydney, Australia 3: International Center for Eyecare Education, Sydney, Australia
Keywords: multi-source surveillance system, microbial keratitis, longitudinal, Australia and New Zealand.
DOI: 10.1080/01658100701473705
ISSN: 0928658617445086
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > OPTOMETRY AND OPHTHALMOLOGY (111300)
Divisions: Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2007 Taylor & Francis
Deposited On: 20 May 2009 23:17
Last Modified: 10 Aug 2011 17:36

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page