ABSTACTAimTo assess the quality of eyeglass prescriptions provided by an affordable wavefront autorefractor operated by a minimally-trained technician in a low-resource setting.Methods708 participants were recruited from consecutive patients registered for routine eye examinations at Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India, or an affiliated rural satellite vision centre. Visual acuity (VA) and patient preference were compared for eyeglasses prescribed from a novel wavefront autorefractor versus eyeglasses prescribed from subjective refraction by an experienced refractionist.ResultsMean ± standard deviation VA was 0.30 ± 0.37, −0.02 ± 0.14, and −0.04 ± 0.11 LogMAR units before correction, with autorefractor correction, and with subjective refraction correction, respectively (all differences P < 0.01). Overall, 25% of participants had no preference, 33% preferred eyeglasses from autorefractor prescriptions, and 42% preferred eyeglasses from subjective refraction prescriptions (P < 0.01). Of the 438 patients 40 years old and younger, 96 had no preference and the remainder had no statistically-significant difference in preference for subjective refraction prescriptions (51%) versus autorefractor prescriptions (49%) (P = 0.52).ConclusionsAverage VAs from autorefractor-prescribed eyeglasses were one letter worse than those from subjective refraction. More than half of all participants either had no preference or preferred eyeglasses prescribed by the autorefractor. This marginal difference in quality may warrant autorefractor-based prescriptions, given the portable form-factor, short measurement time, low-cost, and minimal training required to use the autorefractor evaluated here.SYNOPSISEyeglass prescriptions can be accurately measured by a minimally-trained technician using a low-cost wavefront autorefractor in rural India. Objective refraction may be a feasible approach to increasing eyeglass accessibility in low-resource settings.
Improving Clinical Skills for the Treatment of Postpartum Hemorrhage in a
Low-Resource Setting Using Two Simple, Low-Cost Training Models