ABSTRACT
Objective To study how a non-targeted publicly-funded health care voucher system for the elderly impact on access to optometry services from the perspective of service users and service providers
Design Cross-sectional study
Setting 19 elderly community centers
Participants 1176 people, aged 65 years or above, and 389 optometrists
Primary and secondary outcome measures Usage characteristics of optometry services by eligible service users of the voucher scheme
Perspectives of eligible service users on access barriers to optometry services
Perspectives of service providers on voucher scheme
Results In total, 1156 valid questionnaires were collected from a cohort of eligible service users. Results showed that 53.7% of subjects had used optometry services within the past 2 years, while 22% had not used optometry services before. Lack of familiarity with services provided, professional fees and prices of prescription spectacles were the main barriers to using optometry services. Of those subjects who had used the voucher for optometry service before, 80.4% had eye examination in the past 2 years, versus 64.1% among subjects who had not use health care voucher on the optometry service. “Insufficient voucher value” was a commonly quoted reason for not using the health care vouchers for optometry services. Over 80% of optometrists agreed that the voucher scheme improved the awareness of major eye conditions and enabled the elderly to have prescription spectacles when necessary.
Conclusion The health care voucher for the elderly improved access to optometry services. Access could be improved further by promoting awareness optometry services, location of service providers, price transparency of professional services and prescription spectacles. Responses from optometry services providers are supportive of the view that the voucher scheme improved access to and utilization of preventive care services.
Strengths and limitations of this study
- High representativeness of community dwelling older population in Hong Kong.
- The mixed method approach provided a more in-depth investigation of the population.
- One limitation is the generalizability of the results with older people who are members in the community centers.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data in the study was processed and transferred to the information in the manuscript