OVERVIEW OF THE GOVERNMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM

Advancing eye and vision health as a population health priority will require more than simply asking governmental public health agencies and departments to place greater emphasis on the issue. Governmental public health professionals are responsible for a wide range of federal, state, and local activities and programs that are faced with dwindling resources and, simultaneously, increasing demand. Different levels of emphasis, resources, and staffing are required at each locus of government. In the absence of either increased funding overall or increased support for expanding programmatic focus, it will be difficult to rely on governmental PHDs to continue to provide current support or expand their footprints related to eye and vision health independently from other stakeholders.

This section provides an overview of the general responsibilities, structure, and current capacity constraints of federal, state, and local public health agencies to better understand the roles they could play to improve eye and vision health. In particular, it is important to understand the resource limitations of these systems as well as to recognize the heterogeneity among state and local PHDs because these factors underscore the need to embrace diverse partnerships and a wide range of strategies and programmatic emphases in order to adequately address the pressing public health needs related to eye and vision health and to vision impairment.

BUILDING CAPACITY AND STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE EYE AND VISION HEALTH

A fundamental challenge confronting state and local public health agencies is the availability of dedicated funding and staff resources to identify and respond to eye and vision health needs and to sustain a focus on efforts to improve vision health over time. Providing the full range of expected public health services requires significant capacity (i.e., financial resources, adequate staffing, and an adequately trained staff) that even large health departments struggle to meet. Unabated public demand for services and new legislative mandates exacerbate an already challenging environment. PHDs currently face “declining public investment, sustained attacks from opponents (including affected industries and anti-government political groups), limited political power, and competitors encroaching on its responsibilities” (Jacobson et al., 2015, p. S318). Moreover, flexibility in how state and local governments use federal grant funds varies (e.g., block grants provide broad parameters for spending decisions, whereas state and local governments generally do not have as much latitude for categorical focus grants) (CBO, 2013).

The result for this situation is that other more traditional public health activities, such as surveillance, health promotion, and policy development (including tracking underlying social and environmental conditions as well as eye and vision health) do not receive adequate attention or the necessary resources to address the growing need (Brooks et al., 2009; Honoré and Schlechte, 2007; Jacobson et al., 2015). Some studies suggest that a large, disproportionate percentage of public health funds is dedicated to linking and assuring access to health care services, to the detriment of agencies' ability to adequately attend to other essential services (Brooks et al., 2009; Honoré and Schlechte, 2007). Programmatic emphasis may be narrowed and may reflect national public health priority lists, which do not typically include eye and vision health. For example, in its 2015 Prevention Status Reports, the CDC identified 10 top priority public health problems: motor vehicle injuries, obesity and nutrition, food safety, alcohol-related harms, health care–acquired infections, heart disease and stroke, HIV, prescription drug overdose, teen pregnancy, and tobacco use (CDC, 2015e). In the absence of federal directives and programs to advance eye and vision health, state and local PHDs are hard pressed to incorporate reduction of vision impairment as a categorical programmatic focus. Nor is eye and vision health well integrated into related programs, such as chronic disease and health education programs, although the risk of vision impairment is associated with a number of current public health issues, such as smoking rates. This opportunity is discussed later in this chapter.

An assessment of state-level activities for preventing eye disease and blindness found that the efforts of vision health stakeholders were generally uncoordinated and recommended the mobilization of partnerships to improve collaboration among public- and private-sector organizations (NACDD, 2004).

OPPORTUNITIES TO INCORPORATE EYE AND VISION HEALTH: THE PUBLIC HEALTH AGENDA

A public health agenda represents informed decisions and prioritizations about specific health threats based on the nature of those threats and the ability to influence the occurrence or impact on the overall health and well-being of populations. The agenda should represent thoughtful consideration within a community about what health threats command attention, the availability and application of resources across health and non-health sector domains to successfully address these priorities, agreed upon metrics to measure impact and correct course where applicable, and the appropriate community oversight to hold stakeholders accountable for short- and long-term successes and failures.

Establishing public health priorities requires an informed public. Simply put, “public health depends on laypeople's ability to understand the health-related choices that they and their societies face” (Fischhoff et al., 2009, p. 940). To make such decisions wisely, individuals need to understand the risks and the benefits associated with alternative courses of action (Fischhoff et al., 1993). Health promotion and education are important components of any governmental PHDs population health approach to reducing the eye and vision health burden on society. Health promotion is “the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health. It moves beyond a focus on individual behavior towards a wide range of social and environmental interventions” (WHO, n.d.b.). Therefore, health promotion activities include not only the communication of information to encourage changes in individual behaviors, but also larger policies and practices intended to promote social, economic, and structural environments that are more conducive to health. The related concept of health education includes strategies to promote optimal eye health, prevent vision impairment, and provide people with the skills and ability they need to manage vision impairment and rehabilitation, if necessary. This includes interventions to promote public awareness, change behaviors, and build community environments that promote eye health. Another goal of health education is also to give people the skills they need (e.g., health literacy) and the wherewithal to use them (e.g., an equitable health system). Strategies to promote and protect vision and eye health that are available to governmental PHDs include

• Altering the informational environment (e.g., promoting eye and vision health);
• Altering the built/physical environment (e.g., removing barriers to mobility);
• Directly regulating and monitoring (e.g., requiring eye protections and reporting for sports-related activities and safer work environments);
• Self-regulating (e.g., promoting voluntary employer initiatives to provide accommodations for vision-impaired employees);
• Developing robust state-level surveillance strategies (e.g., incorporating eye health into community health needs assessments and health impact assessments) to collect and analyze data regarding eye health status;
• Monitoring access to vision care services;
• Assuring access to clinical services, especially for undiagnosed and low-income populations at risk of eye disease;
• Incorporating vision care as a strategic planning priority and in conducting health impact assessments;
• Incorporating vision care as an integral component of “health in all policies” programs; and
• Facilitating community engagement in order to promote eye health and obtain community collaboration in implementing policies and programs.

The remainder of this chapter explores some of these strategies in more detail, including efforts to improve public awareness and education, expand access to vision care services and appropriate follow-up care, develop policies to encourage eye healthy environments, promote eye and vision health as part of formal population health programs, and enhance accountability for activities (or lack thereof) related to eye and vision health.

Improving Public Awareness and Education

Understanding that a problem exists and what can be done to ameliorate that problem is the first step to combating any public health threat. Although rarely adequate by themselves, public awareness campaigns can be an effective way to improve knowledge about key messages related to health within populations (Bray et al., 2015; Oto et al., 2011) and are one essential part of an effective population health strategy. In fact, the CDC has stated that public health strategies, which include efforts “to enhance awareness, to promote education, and to increase access to successful prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation services among populations at risk for poor vision outcomes[,] can improve vision health in the United States and globally” (Zambelli-Weiner et al., 2012, p. S23).

Knowledge About the Major Causes of Vision Loss

It is important to understand what the different causes of vision loss are because the types and scopes of applicable interventions vary based on the etiology of vision impairment. According to a recent online poll to examine the importance of eye and vision health among the U.S. population, 88 percent of the 2,044 respondents surveyed identified good vision as vital to maintaining overall health, and 47 percent rated losing their vision compared to loss of limb, memory, hearing, or speech as “potentially having the greatest effect on their day-to-day life” (Scott et al., 2016, p. E3). This same poll found that blindness ranked either first or second among African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and whites as the worse disease or ailment.³ Yet a lack of awareness around vision and eye health issues is “a major public health concern,” especially for linking patients into care and attempting to make population-level changes in behavior and health practice (Bailey et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2012).

Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed literature contains remarkably little comprehensive data from the past decade about eye and vision health knowledge and the impact of public awareness and health promotion in the United States nationally. In 2005 the NEI and the Lions Club International Foundation (LCIF) conducted a telephone survey of more than 3,000 English- and Spanish-speaking adults in the United States about public knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to eye health and disease. The study found that public awareness of glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic eye disease, and low vision varied substantially by disease⁴ (see Figure 5-2). While the majority of people who were aware of glaucoma (90 percent) or diabetic eye disease (51 percent) knew that these conditions could be treated, the vast majority of these individuals did not know that glaucoma (92 percent) or diabetic retinopathy (89 percent) could present clinically with no early warning signs (NEI/LCIF, 2008). The most current, national data on vision loss awareness indicate that public knowledge about specific eye diseases and available treatment varies substantially.

FIGURE 5-2

Percentage of adults ages 18 and older who are aware of four common eye-related diseases or conditions. SOURCE: NEI/LCIF, 2008.

Some improvements in knowledge over time have been observed. From 1991 to 2005, for instance, the percentage of adults who had heard of diabetic eye disease increased from 39 percent to 51 percent. The percentage of adults who had heard of glaucoma remained high (91 compared to 90 percent) during the same 14-year period (NEI/LCIF, 2008). The survey has not been updated since 2005, so there are no more recent statistics on public awareness of the major causes of eye disease. However, in its Five-Year Agenda for 2012–2017, NEHEP stated that “trends in the public's knowledge, attitude, and practices will be examined through updates of the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) Survey” (NEHEP, 2011, p. 22). The committee supports this endeavor and encourages federal support for updating data on the public's perception of and familiarity with eye health behaviors, risk factors, the relationship between eye and vision health and other measures of health, and available interventions, including the use of protective lenses, the utilization of health care, and the detection of uncorrected and correctable refractive error.

Awareness of Relevant Risk Factors for Vision Loss and Impairment

Knowing that a health threat exists is not the same as knowing what to do to avert that threat. Various factors are associated with an individual's level of knowledge about eye and vision health. The NEI-LCIF KAP survey analyzed data by age, household income, and educational attainment. Although the findings varied by condition, individuals with higher income levels and educational attainment were generally found to have a greater awareness of eye health (NEI/LCIF, 2008; see also Jaggernath et al., 2014). An awareness of eye health and disease has also been shown to be positively correlated with age (NEI/LCIF, 2008). Hispanic Americans are less likely to have knowledge of eye health and disease than Caucasians, African Americans, and Asian Americans (NEI/LCIF, 2008; Zhang et al., 2012). Studies outside of the United States found similar results. For example, a study in Canada about cataract, glaucoma, and macular degeneration found that both non-European ancestry and low educational attainment were associated with a poor knowledge of eye diseases, suggesting “that innovative education programs in primary and secondary schools and in non-English languages are needed to improve knowledge, attitudes, and practices” (Noertjojo et al., 2006, p. 617).

Not surprisingly, the evidence about public awareness is more robust when one examines risk factors that overlap with major public awareness initiatives. For example, two studies have analyzed the public's knowledge of smoking as a risk factor for AMD; these found, that 68 percent and 54 percent of the adults surveyed did not know that smoking was associated with specific types of vision impairment (AMD Alliance International, 2005; Caban-Martinez et al., 2011). A 2011 study investigating awareness of the relationship between smoking and vision impairment among smokers in the United States found that only 9.5 percent of smokers believed that smoking caused blindness, with those with a lower education level significantly more likely to doubt the association (Kennedy et al., 2011).

Even people who know that they have an eye disease or condition may not understand how that should affect their behavior. A primary reason that those who would benefit from an examination give for not seeing an eye care professional, even when they have an existing visual impairment and eye disease risk factors such as diabetes, is that “no need” exists (Bailey et al., 2006; Chou et al., 2014; McGwin et al., 2010; Varano et al., 2015). Substantial variation exists by state, and older populations are more likely to cite “no need” as a reason for not having their eyes examined (Chou et al., 2012, 2014). Patients are significantly more likely to receive annual eye examinations if they understand that examinations can detect eye disease (Sheppler et al., 2014). A 2008 American Optometric Association survey found that, although 81 percent of Americans use some form of vision correction, 32 percent were unaware that chronic and systemic diseases can be detected during an eye exam (AOA, 2008). A more recent survey found that, although African American participants with diabetes knew that they needed to have their eyes checked, they did not know why (NEHEP, 2014). A lack of awareness is also a barrier to accessing rehabilitation services among people who have uncorrectable impaired vision (Lam and Leat, 2015). The NEI-LCIF KAP survey revealed that only 31 percent of individuals with low vision had been told to see a low vision specialist (NEI/LCIF, 2008). These findings suggest that many eye care providers may not be providing sufficient education to their patients about low vision and the resources available to help them face the challenges associated with it—a topic that is explored further in Chapter 8.

In the absence of more robust data on public awareness about eye and vision health in general, it is reasonable to assume that members of the public know less about risk factors and appropriate actions to reduce the risk for specific eye diseases or conditions than about the existence of those diseases or conditions. The combination of a lack of awareness and the asymptomatic nature of much of early treatable disease leads to delayed diagnoses and treatment, which in turn leads to a greater risk of developing blindness (Alexander et al., 2008; Sloan et al., 2005). This suggests a need for additional public education activities and policies that encourage health care providers and public health practitioners to actively promote eye and vision health.

Efforts to Improve National Public Awareness of Eye and Vision Health

Enhancing public knowledge about a health threat is a fundamental first step in informing discussions that promote behavior change across multiple determinants of health and aligning health policies with general public health interests. Having reliable, consistent, evidence-based information that is available and accessible by a variety of stakeholders can help increase overall knowledge and lead individuals to behave in ways that promote good eye and vision health or seek appropriate care to slow progression of a vision-threatening disease or condition or to improve function when vision impairment is irreversible.

Public awareness campaigns—generally in combination with other public health strategies—have been used extensively and successfully in population health for decades. These campaigns often focus on behavior change that reduces the risk of poor health (e.g., smoking cessation, improved nutrition and exercise, increased cancer screenings) or the risk of injury (e.g., seatbelt use, reducing drunk driving and drug use, water safety). For example, campaigns targeting population tobacco use in adults have been identified as an important component in comprehensive tobacco control programs intended to affect knowledge, behaviors, and agenda setting (Bala et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2011; Durkin et al., 2012; Fosson et al., 2014; Hershey et al., 2005; Niederdeppe et al., 2004). Public education mass media campaigns in the United States and Australia have also been shown to be effective at reducing morbidity, mortality, and the economic costs due to skin cancer (Doran et al., 2016; Kyle et al., 2008; Shih et al., 2009). Public awareness campaigns also serve to raise the visibility of an issue among the national electorate, which can lead to changes in laws, regulations, and policies at the federal, state, and local levels that are intended to support and enforce individual behavior change (e.g., legislation to increase seatbelt use or increase the drinking age) or increase the resources and programmatic focus for specific diseases or conditions (e.g., breast cancer or HIV/AIDS).

Current national activities A number of national and state programs are designed to advance public awareness about eye issues. Many of these programs target particular threats to vision, especially among the most at-risk populations. For example, NEHEP partners with more than 60 professional, civic, and voluntary organizations and government agencies concerned with eye health in order to increase public awareness through culturally appropriate, health-literate, and evidence-based health information about the importance of early detection and timely treatment of eye disease and the use of vision rehabilitation services among health care professionals and the public (NEI/NIH, 2015b). Specifically, NEHEP includes five vision education programs focusing on (1) people living in Hispanic/Latino communities, (2) people at risk for glaucoma, (3) diabetic eye disease, (4) age-related conditions, and (5) people living with low vision. NEHEP's printable cards, pamphlets, and infographics are geared toward use by a community health organizer. NEHEP partners with local governments to create culturally appropriate educational materials (NEHEP, 2011). The Lions Eye Health Program is a community-based education program that promotes healthy vision and raises awareness of the causes of preventable vision loss (Lions Club, 2016).

Various organizations design websites and related promotional materials to support national awareness months for specific eye diseases and conditions. For example, the NEI identifies January as Glaucoma Awareness Month (NEI/NIH, n.d.). Prevent Blindness has declared February to be National AMD and Low Vision Awareness Month and June to be Cataract Awareness Month (Prevent Blindness, 2016b). These types of activities provide valuable information about vision loss, but they fail to create a cohesive message that can advance eye and vision health as a larger public health priority among the general public.

Data on the impact of public awareness campaigns related to eye and vision health have largely been limited to data on exposure—e.g., the number of imprints, webpage views, or followers on social media websites—rather than on specific measures of health outcomes or on such determinants as attitudes and beliefs. There are no data to assess whether NEHEP activities have had an impact on health outcomes, behavioral change, or even general public awareness because the focus is not on behavior change and no funds are available to formally evaluate the program.^5,6 Moreover, there is no recent information about the number of Americans exposed to health education initiatives that are vision centric. In the future, large-scale public awareness campaigns will need to explicitly include resources to assess impact at different stages of the campaign.

Targeted education programs There are various smaller-scale, more conservative efforts to improve consumer education, and advocacy, professional, and patient organizations and other stakeholders can play an important role in their coordination. Smaller-scale health education initiatives have been shown to be effective at increasing the numbers of people receiving vision care and improving patient outcomes (Livingston et al., 1998). In the United States, for example, multiple health education interventions to promote screening for diabetic retinopathy have proven effective at increasing the rates of dilated fundus examinations (Jones et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2008; Weiss et al., 2015). After implementing a major vision health education campaign targeted to populations at higher risk for developing eye disease, Australia saw significant increases in the use of eye services and decreases in the prevalence of behaviors that are associated with increased risk to vision health (Müller et al., 2007). Similar findings emerged from a Norwegian study among diabetics (Sundling et al., 2008). A 2005 study of metal-ware factories in Italy found that the use of educational materials to prevent work-related eye injuries could be effective when it was coupled with increases in official inspections to promote compliance with workplace regulations (Mancini et al., 2005). More generally, health education has been shown to improve perceived security, quality of life, and functionality among patients with irreversible vision impairment (Dahlin Ivanoff et al., 2002; Eklund et al., 2004, 2005, 2008). Simple educational interventions with patients can improve adherence to prescribed therapies and treatment schedules (Ellish et al., 2011; Weiss et al., 2015).

Examples of local public awareness campaigns include the Marshall B. Ketchum University's Children's Vision Initiative in California, the Day with the Doctor Intervention in Indiana, the Eye Exams in Putnam City Schools project in Oklahoma, the See to Read Vision Awareness Program in Tennessee, and the All The Kids project in Mississippi (AOA, 2014). Again, data on the impact of these types of programs vary and need to be linked to patient health outcomes, in addition to monitoring health care utilization rates.

The role of the media Mass and social media play a central role in shaping the lives and priorities of societies and individual communities. The media is an important public health tool for shaping public sentiment and political poignancy and their downstream effects on community attention and political priorities, respectively (Convissor et al., 1990; McCombs and Shaw, 1972). Furthermore, how the media portrays a particular health concern, such as visual impairment, may also be able to reduce the stigma or negative public perception related to that condition (e.g., IOM, 2012b; NASEM, 2016). For example, in the case of drug policy research, one study found that the media influences audiences by “setting the agenda and defining public interest; framing issues through selection and salience; indirectly shaping individual and community attitudes towards risk; and feeding into political debate and decision making” (Lancaster et al., 2011, p. 397). In its 2003 report The Future of the Public's Health in the 21st Century, the IOM cited media coverage of AIDS as a good example of how the media can enhance the visibility of important health topics among the general public (IOM, 2003). This knowledge can then serve as a catalyst to promote changes at the federal, state, local and community levels.

Little academic research exists on the role of the media in promoting eye and vision health in the United States. Some of the more common topics in the literature are various causes of eye injury (e.g., party foam–induced, work-related eye injuries, fireworks), although many of these studies call for additional awareness campaigns rather than evaluating the effectiveness of existing campaigns (Abulafia et al., 2013; Glazier et al., 2011; Korchak et al., 2012; Zohar et al., 2004). However, the Community Preventive Services Task Force has found strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of those health communication campaigns designed to influence behaviors “that use multiple channels, one of which must be mass media (e.g., television, radio, and billboards) but can also include small media, social media, and interpersonal communication, combined with the distribution of free or reduced-price health-related products” (ODPHP, 2010). The media's significance will continue to grow as more traditional news outlets (e.g., television, radio, and newspapers) are being replaced with ever-evolving communication technologies (e.g., smartphones, tablet computers) and social media outlets. The ubiquity of social media continues to expand opportunities to engage and educate the public about the importance of maintaining eye and vision health, and social media can serve as a valuable resource to connect visually impaired people to needed services and advocacy platforms. The effective use of social media platforms in health promotion intervention programs, in general, remains a fluid topic of discussion (Chou et al., 2009, 2013; Korda and Itani, 2013; Lefebvre and Bornkessel, 2013; Moorhead et al., 2013; Neiger et al., 2012). The use and efficacy of social media to educate the public and increase awareness concerning eye and vision health warrants additional research and consideration.

A national public awareness campaign to promote eye and vision health Large-scale public awareness campaigns for eye and vision health will require substantial resources, which will necessitate a federal presence and collaboration with a variety of stakeholders in the public and private sectors. The most effective public awareness campaigns are usually large scale and multifaceted, involving a range of outreach activities, stakeholders and sponsors, educational materials, messaging, and media platforms. For example, to influence ultraviolet (UV) radiation-protective behaviors, a systematic review by the Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends “combinations of individual-directed strategies, mass media campaigns, and environmental and policy changes across multiple settings within a defined geographic area (city, state, province, or country)” (CPSTF, 2014).

Likewise, a comprehensive public awareness campaign for eye and vision health would need to be one component of a larger, long-term effort to change attitudes, knowledge, behavior, and practice across the lifespan. For example, the Partnership for a Healthier America and the Let's Move! initiative have raised the visibility of childhood obesity as a public health priority using a variety of media platforms to increase awareness (e.g., Chanel One News in schools, websites, mass marketing campaigns with industry, agreements with Sesame Street) (Spinweber and Honeysett, 2013). The media messaging is part of a larger effort to engage a wide range of public and private partners in diverse activities in order to catalyze large-scale changes in behaviors, interventions, and education around childhood obesity. Some of the other activities include increasing access to healthier, quality, affordable meals, maintaining and creating safe places for children to play, offering more opportunities for kids to get involved in active play, and educating parents on ways to increase healthy eating habits and active play (The White House, 2010).

Given the current and projected number of individuals with varying degrees and types of vision impairment in the United States (see Chapter 2), it will be necessary for advocacy organizations, government agencies, health care professionals, public health practitioners, researchers, and private industry to collaborate in order to amplify messaging from public health entities within and across the federal government, governmental PHDs, and population health systems. A large-scale public awareness campaign will need to be centered around concise and concrete goals and to consider a combination of individual-directed strategies, mass media campaigns, and environmental and policy changes across multiple settings within defined geographic areas (e.g., city, state, province, or country). Ascertaining the impact of specific campaigns and the elements most closely predictive of success will require careful evaluation. As with anti-smoking campaigns, the intensity and duration of mass vision health media campaigns may influence effectiveness, but the population characteristics, length of followup, and concurrent secular trends and events will also be important to monitor (Doyle et al., 2008). Necessary outcomes should include, but not be limited to

• changes in knowledge about high prevalence conditions, diseases, and events;
• risk and protective factors that account for multiple determinants of health;
• behavior changes (e.g., access to and use of eye health services, and adherence to risk reduction practices); and
• health outcomes, including more downstream effects from vision impairment.

Federal support for the infrastructure and engagement in public awareness campaigns, and large-scale public health initiatives, is “more likely when a field has a united front of advocates to communicate the urgency of a problem, why that problem should be addressed now, and how best to solve the problem” (IOM, 2015, p. 346). This will require the eye and vision field to establish a common platform from which to advance messages to improve eye and vision health that extend beyond the delivery of health care services. Moreover, because a lack of knowledge about vision loss and the possible prevention or treatment of subsequent vision impairment requires increased knowledge among vulnerable populations and practitioners, public awareness campaigns hold promise as a tactic to mitigate these deficits, when included as one component of a larger population health strategy. Assessing the impact of specific campaigns will require carefully designed evaluations, to not only provide some evidence of return on investment, but also provide the foundation from which to generate sustained support for ongoing efforts in future years.

EXPANDING ACCESS TO COMMUNITY-BASED VISION SCREENING SERVICES AND FOLLOW-UP CARE

Ensuring that at-risk populations are linked to appropriate clinical care is a public health function. Vision screening can be a critical connection between the clinical vision services system, the larger public health system, and the populations they serve. It is a means of strengthening clinical vision service actions in community settings and an opportunity for refocusing the clinical vision services system and its providers on the public health objectives of preventing and treating vision loss and approaches to accomplishing those objectives. In the absence of adequate resources to provide comprehensive eye examinations to every person in accordance with evidence-based guidelines, vision screenings may be performed by both optometrists and ophthalmologists, as well as by other properly trained individuals in order to expand entry into appropriate eye and vision care systems, as well as into the overarching health care system.

Vision screenings allow for the identification—but not diagnosis—of eye disease. In this report, unless otherwise stated, the term “vision screening” is used to refer to any of a set of general eye health assessments that can be used to identify potential problems with visual functioning or symptoms suggestive of an eye disease or condition. Screenings cannot diagnose the cause of vision problems, but they can be used to expand entry to the health care system and access to appropriate follow-up care for more vulnerable populations. Mobile screening and imaging units can improve access to vision care, promote follow-up care, optimize the capacity of a limited workforce, and promote multidisciplinary collaborations (Beynat et al., 2009; Boucher et al., 2008; Griffith et al., 2016; Hautala et al., 2009; Kodjebacheva et al., 2011). Vision screenings are generally less expensive and less time-consuming than comprehensive eye examinations, but there are also concerns about the sensitivity and specificity of vision screenings. These concerns and more technical aspects of screenings and comprehensive eye examinations are described in Chapter 7.

In the United States, emerging diagnostic technologies and innovative screening programs have extended the services of the vision care system to schools in remote and medically underserved areas. For example, photoscreening and remote autorefraction have been shown to be effective at screening schoolchildren for amblyopia and vision disorders in urban and rural Alaska (Arnold et al., 2008; Lang et al., 2007). Screening high-risk populations such as children for refractive error and amblyopia and then assuring access to proper treatment, including eye examinations for clinical diagnosis and corrective lenses, are key actions that can be advanced through a variety of population health partnerships and strategies.

Vision Screening for Children and Other At-Risk Populations

As in adults, refractive error is a major cause of preventable vision impairment in children and young adults (Tarczy-Hornoch et al., 2013; Vitale et al., 2008). For example, the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study evaluated more than 2,500 children ages 5 through 17 and found “overall, 9.2 percent of the children were myopic, 12.8 percent were hyperopic, and 28.4 were astigmatic,” with pronounced differences between the four ethnic/racial groups studied (Kleinstein et al., 2003, p. 1141). Undiagnosed vision impairment in children can have substantial effects on social development and health, with the potential to negatively impact social, physical, educational, and professional activities (Davidson and Quinn, 2011; Kulp et al., 2016). Uncorrected refractive error can have significant effects on educational performance and is a risk factor for amblyopia (Tarczy-Hornoch et al., 2013). Glewwe and colleagues explore disparities in vision care utilization by low-income and minority children, noting that they “have a greater than average risk of under-diagnosis and under-treatment . . . [and] Title 1 students are two to three times more likely than non-Title 1 students to have undetected or untreated vision problems” (Glewwe et al., 2014, p. 1).

Mobile clinics and school-based vision screenings that are provided at no cost offer a means of addressing demonstrated financial, social, and political barriers to accessing eye care for children and other at-risk populations (Castanes, 2003). One school-based screening program in the United Kingdom achieved a screening acceptance rate of greater than 95 percent among 3,721 children; of the 11.14 percent of students referred who were for follow-up care, more than half had refractive errors correctable by eyeglasses (Toufeeq and Oram, 2014). In a screening program in North Carolina, school nurses evaluated 2,726 elementary school children during the 2009–2010 school year and identified 3 cases needing intervention out of every 100 evaluations (Kemper et al., 2012). Mobile clinics have been used to provide vision screenings for pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade public school children, with one program performing more than 63,000 evaluations, representing 55 percent of the eligible population during a 12-year period (Griffith et al., 2016). Similarly, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Mobile Eye Clinic identified 906 out of 11,302 first-graders as having decreased visual acuity and found that eyeglasses would correct vision in 94.7 percent of those cases, although the investigation did not record rates of follow-up care after screening (Kodjebacheva et al., 2011).

Independent scholars have similarly recommended that policy makers implement vision programs that bring vision services to children, including screening, into classroom environments (Ethan and Basch, 2008). Head Start and Early Head Start programs are required, in collaboration with parents, to “obtain linguistically and age appropriate screenings to identify concerns regarding a child's developmental, sensory (visual and auditory), behavioral, motor, language, social, cognitive, perceptual, and emotional skills” within 45 calendar days of the child's entry into the program and facilitate implementation of follow-up plans and treatment.⁷ The American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Academy of Pediatric Ophthalmologists and Strabismus, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended that vision screening be included in routine school-based vision checks because it can maximize the rate of early detection of amblyopia, strabismus, refractive error, and other eye conditions in children, among other benefits (AAO, 2013). Many states have imposed vision screening requirements for school-age children to help identify students in need of eye care (see, AAPOS, 2011, for a current list of state-by-state school screening requirements). Box 5-1 details the example of how the state of Michigan has promoted vision screening programs for children. However, specific requirements and screening practices vary among and even within states, with implications for the percentage of students with visual impairments that are identified as requiring eye care (AAPOS, 2011; Marshall et al., 2010). Some states—including Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota—have no pediatric vision screening policies at all, though the governments of New Hampshire and South Carolina do recommend screenings (AAPOS, 2011).

BOX 5-1

Case Study on Michigan's Public Health Vision Screening Program.

Promoting Follow-Up Care After Screenings

Screening programs cannot lead to reduced vision impairment if the process does not include a mechanism to assure appropriate follow-up care. One demonstration project that provided vision screening of preschool-age children at two primary care practices and two community-based centers achieved monocular visual acuity and stereopsis screening rates between 70 and 93 percent and 88 and 98 percent for 3- and 4-year-olds, respectively. However, the rates of follow-up varied widely—from 29 to 100 percent and from 41 to 100 percent for the 3- and 4-year-olds, respectively (Hartmann et al., 2006). A quality improvement project to enhance the rate of pediatric vision screenings at 13 clinics in North Carolina saw significant improvements in the rate of screening among children ages 3 to 5 years over a 6-month period; vision distance testing increased from 92 to 97 percent, and stereopsis screening rates increased from 80 percent to 89 percent. Yet, follow-up rescreening for initially untestable children was infrequently documented, and referral rates for abnormal screens remained low at 48 percent (Kemper et al., 2011). Other studies have also found that the rates of appropriate referral and follow-up care can be sub-optimal (Hered and Wood, 2013).

Simple logic dictates that programs that provide eyeglasses following screenings or eye examinations will improve the sight of more people with correctable refractive error than screenings or examinations alone. A number of programs available through various philanthropic and charitable organizations, professional organizations, and industry provide free eyecare screenings, examinations, and eyeglasses for children and other vulnerable populations to better ensure the detection of potential vision problems and improve eyesight. Box 5-2 provides some examples. Many of these programs are designed to link children and low-income individuals to available eye and vision services, including in some cases, provision of eyeglasses. Only a few recent peer-reviewed articles on population-level impact are available for these programs. A 2015 study on 689 students at 28 different schools served by the Philadelphia Eagles Eye Mobile found that false-positive rates of school nurse screening averaged 16.11 percent (range 0 to 44 percent), suggesting the need for better training to reduce false-positive screenings. The same study found that the use of prescribed glasses was 71 percent at 12 months, but only 53 percent of children followed through with their pediatric ophthalmology referral (Alvi et al., 2015).

BOX 5-2

Examples of Programs to Improve Eye Care in Communities.

Recently, Vision To Learn partnered with Johns Hopkins University, the Baltimore City Health Department, and the Baltimore City Public School System to launch a citywide initiative, Vision for Baltimore, which will provide vision screenings and free eyeglasses for pre-kindergarteners to eighth-graders in all 50 Baltimore City public schools (Naron and Mendes, 2016). The Baltimore City Health Department will administer initial screenings, with the support of the Anne E. Casey Foundation, the Abell Foundation, and Vision To Learn, the latter of which has mobile eye clinics for onsite services. Warby Parker, a New York City–based online eyewear retailer, has agreed to provide eyeglasses (Naron and Mendes, 2016). Staff from the School of Education and the Wilmer Eye Institute will work with the schools to train school staff and maximize the use of prescribed eyeglasses. A formal evaluation of the program's impact is planned. Results documenting the impact on student achievement and eyewear compliance have been submitted for publication (Naron and Mendes, 2016). A similar initiative exists in New York City, where the Community Schools Initiative will expand its vision screening program to all 130 Community Schools (including elementary, middle, and high schools) through a partnership with Warby Parker to provide free eyeglasses to every student in need (City of New York, 2016). Evaluations of the impacts of these programs will be essential to establishing better evidentiary support for investment in similar programs. As indicated by even the short list of activities provided in Box 5-2, a wide range of partners is already committed to improving the eye and vision health of the nation. It will be important to follow the impact of these programs and evaluate critical success and failure factors when considering whether similar initiatives will work in other communities and on larger scales. Policy makers could collaborate with PHDs, school administrators, and other stakeholders on a national effort to standardize state requirements for vision screening in schools.

Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program are public health programs that can also provide eye and vision care coverage for certain low-income and disabled people and families (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2013; Medicaid, 2016b). All plans that cover children and adolescents must provide basic eye care services as an essential health benefit (Healthcare.gov, 2016). Optional eye and vision benefits under Medicaid are determined by individual states and so vary from state to state, but they may include the provision of eyeglasses and optometric, diagnostic, screening, preventive, and rehabilitative services, as well as prescription drugs, dental care, physical and occupational therapy, and podiatric services, among others (Medicaid, 2016a). Efforts to expand the benefits of these programs are considered in Chapter 6.

ENCOURAGING ENVIRONMENTS THAT SUPPORT EYE HEALTH AND VISUAL FUNCTION: POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT

Health departments can play an important role in influencing the built environment, i.e., the physical environment constructed by human activity, although “exact [legal] mechanisms vary by state and locality” (see, e.g., Perdue et al., 2003, p. 1392). The built environment includes all the physical parts of where we live, including homes, buildings, worksites, transportation systems, civic infrastructure, and public places (Dannenberg et al., 2011). State and LHDs have the legal authority and capacity to work across sectors to improve the environmental conditions that impede eye and vision health; these environmental conditions include both the built and social determinants of eye and vision health. Two of the more obvious issues related to the built environment are accessibility and injury prevention, although building design regulations may now explicitly address vision-related conditions, such as eyestrain. Accessibility barriers can range from poorly designed pavement to inadequate pedestrian crossings. Poorly designed physical spaces (such as difficult-to-navigate subway platforms and poorly lighted building interiors) can cause injuries to people with low vision (Imrie and Kumar, 1998). These are important elements to consider when developing a comprehensive population health approach to address eye and vision health. Indeed, based on a variety of factors, health departments may take a leading role in recommending changes to the built environment. Arguably, for example, Frieden's (2010) Health Impact Pyramid places greater reliance on changing the environment (the context in the pyramid) than on medical care as the basis for health department interventions at the population level.

Ensuring Equal Access to Facilities and Services

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181),⁸ including changes by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,⁹ prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by state and local governments, places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, shopping centers, pharmacies, doctor's offices, hospitals, libraries, private schools, health spas), commercial facilities, and private entities. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides similar protections in relation to programs operated or funded by the federal government, as well as requiring equal employment opportunity within the federal government.¹⁰ The ADA's definition of disability includes “blindness” (defined as meaning having less than 20/200 visual acuity even with corrective lenses or a visual field that is 20 degrees or less, regardless of acuity).¹¹ People with “low vision” (eyesight that is better than 20/200 or a visual field that is greater than 20 degrees but that includes a significant vision impairment that substantially limits the ability to see well under different circumstances) may also require accommodations.

Entities subject to regulations must

follow accessibility standards when constructing or altering facilities; remove architectural or structural communication barriers in existing facilities where it is readily achievable to do so; make reasonable modifications in policies and procedures (e.g., allow person to be accompanied by service animal or guide dog, even if a hotel has a “no pets” policy); eliminate discriminatory eligibility criteria (e.g., allow a guest to use alternative state ID to substitute for driver's license at check-in); and provide auxiliary aids and services leading to effective communication if it is not an undue burden and does not fundamentally alter the nature of the goods or services provided (e.g., provide alternate format materials such as Braille, large print, and audio tape when a guest cannot read standard print materials due to a disability). (DOJ, n.d.)

The facilities and services covered by the ADA includes, but are not limited to, transportation services; academic, medical, and recreational facilities; and government programs, activities, and services. For example, mass transit systems should design their facilities and equipment to be accessible to disabled individuals (AFB, 2016a). Airlines could offer additional services such as pre-boarding, a guided tour of the aircraft, and providing menus and evacuation information in Braille (SATH, 2013). Similarly, libraries, museums, shopping malls, community health clinics, courthouses, and city sidewalks should all be accessible to individuals with disabilities, including those who are legally blind. The ADA also requires that regulated entities promote effective communication with people who have disabilities that can affect different communication capabilities (DOJ, 2015). The U.S. Department of Justice has offered guidance on the types of services and practices that can be considered to better accommodate people with vision impairment under the ADA (see Box 5-3).

BOX 5-3

Examples of Services and Practices That May Assist People with Vision Impairment Under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency responsible for enforcing the ADA, has also issued regulations regarding vision needs under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The statute, at 42 U.S.C. 12102(4)(c)(ii), states, inter alia, that mitigating measures include lowvision devices (excluding ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), the use of assistive technology, and reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services. With regard to eyeglasses, the regulations state,

The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. The term “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error; and the term “low-vision devices” means devices that magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.

Likewise, adaptive behaviors to compensate for low vision (such as side-to-side movement for someone with monocular vision) are included. Problems associated with the affordability of eyeglasses are discussed in Chapter 6.

Ensuring and enforcing equal access under the ADA will require collaboration among federal, state, and local governments, architects and engineers, city planners, disability rights advocates, and others. Coordinating these actions to derive maximum value and efficiency from individual efforts is the difficult but necessary task of stakeholders in all sectors. Governmental PHDs can help facilitate these efforts by convening and working with local employers, regulators, and low-vision community advocates to create a long-term strategy to continue to improve ADA compliance.

Promotion of Eye and Vision Health as a Programmatic Focus: Provision of Technical Expertise and Resources

Federal agencies charged with a wide range of responsibilities in the promotion of public health are uniquely situated to provide the needed resources and expertise that will allow state and LHDs to incorporate eye and vision health as a programmatic focus. The Vision Health Initiative (VHI) is a multilevel collaboration between the CDC's Division of Diabetes Translation and state and national partners, designed to promote vision health and quality of life for all populations, throughout all life stages, by preventing and controlling eye disease, eye injury, and vision loss resulting in disability. VHI has the unique role of collaborating with state and national partners to strengthen science and develop interventions to improve eye health, reduce vision loss and blindness, and promote the health of people with vision loss (CDC, 2015a). In addition to its leadership role in VHI, the CDC also

• Provides technical assistance to national, state, and local organizations oriented to preserving, protecting, and enhancing vision;
• Offers scientific bases for collaboration among provider groups, financing systems, and policy makers so that health care systems can respond effectively to vision and eye health as a major public health concern;
• Aids in translating science into programs, services, and policies and in coordinating service activities with partners in the public, private, and voluntary sectors; and
• Addresses issues related to the cost of vision loss, vision disability, eye disease, and quality of life (CDC, 2015a).

VHI provides a number of examples of how federal support and involvement in eye and vision health can translate into information and practices at the state level (see Box 5-4). Many of these examples are specific to eye and vision health, including specific eye diseases, but the supported partnerships have also been extended to chronic conditions more broadly. For example, in 2003, the CDC entered into a partnership with Prevent Blindness America to build capacity in states to address vision and eye health, which led to the active engagement of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors, an organization that represents the leaders of state health department chronic disease programs (NACDD, n.d.).

BOX 5-4

Examples of Vision Health Initiative Activities and Support to Expand Resources and Capacity for State and Local Health Departments and Other Essential Stakeholders.

In 2016, the CDC implemented a vision grant program in partnership with state-based chronic disease programs and other clinical and nonclinical stakeholders “to engage in strategic initiatives or activities designed to improve vision and eye health” (NACDD, 2016, p. 1). The current grant program will award three states an average of $25,000 toward the development of activities that (1) “achieve the overall goal of advancing vision loss and eye health as public health priorities”; (2) “implement a vision and eye health intervention that focuses on [characterizing the burden of eye disease or vision loss, promote systems change, or implement interventions related to eye and vision health]”; and . . . (3) “focus on sustainability . . . beyond the initial funding period” (NACDD, 2016, p. 4). This is an important step in the right direction, but more extensive resources will be needed to allow each state the opportunity to invest resources in the eye and vision health of its population.

Similarly, the NEI provides funding opportunities and resources that have helped to increase understanding about eye and vision health problems. The NEI reports awarding approximately 1,600 research grants and training awards related to vision research, in addition to laboratory and patient-oriented research at its own facilities, and it supports NEHEP, as described earlier in this chapter (NEI/NIH, 2015c). A review of the major advances reported by the NEI on its website suggests a heavy focus on the development and evaluation of effective treatments for specific eye diseases and conditions. Moreover, a review of the NEI's pioneering new advances to prevent and treat vision loss indicates that much research focused on stem cell research, gene therapy, the genetics of complex diseases, and the regeneration of the retina and connections to the brain (NEI/NIH, 2015c). Again, this is valuable information, but this programmatic emphasis needs to balance the need for novel scientific discoveries against the need for research that focuses on diseases and conditions that affect a larger proportion of the public. Regardless, clinical advances should be evaluated in terms of their clinical effectiveness as well as improved population health.

Despite the CDC's and the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) current commitment to improving the population's eye and vision health, doing so is not a prominent line item in either's budget (see Chapter 4). Furthermore, no part of the federal government has the statutory responsibility to ensure an adequately funded population health vision care agenda. At the state and local levels, vision care remains subordinate to other public health mandates and competing priorities. In short, to elevate eye and vision health as a population health issue, more coordination is needed within the federal government to expand the number and scope of opportunities to enhance state and local capacities.

ENHANCING ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability refers to “the principle that individuals, organizations and the community are responsible for their actions and may be required to explain them to others” (Benjamin et al., 2006, p. 78). A core governmental PHDs function is providing assurance that appropriate institutions are protecting the public's health, rather than a specific subset of the population (e.g., patients within a health care system). This is an essential accountability mechanism that only the governmental PHDs can provide for the population's eye and vision health. In any population health initiative, accountability is important because it forces partners and collaborators to measure and communicate a program's expectations and the magnitude of its impact to inform and influence the public and elected officials.

In 2011, the IOM released the report For the Public's Health: The Role of Measurement in Action and Accountability, which chronicled different types of measures and assessments for characterizing the public health system's impact and how decision makers can use these tools to inform policies and practices (IOM, 2011c). The report proposed that “assessing and measuring accountability at any level (local, state, or national) and holding organizations accountable require the following four foundational elements:

• An identified body with a clear charge to accomplish particular steps toward health goals.
• Ensuring that the body has the capacity to undertake the required activities.
• Measuring what is accomplished against the identified body's clear charge.
• The availability of tools to assess and improve effectiveness and quality (such as a feedback loop as part of a learning system, incentives, and technical assistance).” (IOM, 2011c, p. 113)

This will require a process for priority setting and for evaluating the impact of specific programs to maintain accountability to the public, partners, and policy makers.

Prioritizing Eye and Vision Health

Population health priorities should be driven by more than simple mortality rates and should account for the potential quality of adjusted life years, the economic impact of the particular problem across the lifespan, and the ability to prevent or eliminate a potential burden for a large proportion of the affected individuals. As discussed in Chapter 2, the burden of eye diseases and vision impairment affects individuals across the lifespan to varying degrees of severity. To begin to diminish this public health burden, state and LHDs can explicitly make eye and vision health a priority as part of their strategic planning and program implementation. To establish nationwide consistency, the CDC and other federal bodies would also need to prioritize eye and vision health within their official strategic plans. As noted earlier in the chapter, neither state nor LHDs will be able to give, or support, emphasis in the eye and vision health area without some consistent source of financial and staffing support. Thus, additional congressional funding specific to eye and vision health initiatives beyond current levels would also be necessary.

The CDC has recognized five definitional features of a public health problem: (1) the problem affects a large number of people; (2) the problem imposes large morbidity, quality-of-life, and cost burdens; (3) the severity of the problem is increasing and is predicted to continue increasing; (4) the public perceives the problem to be a threat; and (5) community- or public health-level interventions to the problem are feasible (CDC, 2009). As described in earlier chapters, eye and vision health meet this definition. There are many diseases, conditions, and injuries that meet this definition, however, so governmental PHDs and other community stakeholders must decide whether the promotion of eye and vision health is indeed a priority.

Priority setting helps balance the most pressing needs with the finite budget. A number of tools are available to help governmental PHDs and other population health stakeholders determine what will constitute health priorities within their communities. Box 5-5 describes the broad suggestions of the National Association of County and City Health Officials for prioritizing community health issues. For example, the Department of Public Health for the County of Los Angeles identifies four categories of criteria that could be used by decision makers: (1) a quantitative assessment of the magnitude of the issue, (2) a qualitative assessment of the importance of the issue, (3) the effectiveness of interventions, and (4) the feasibility of implementing interventions (Department of Public Health County of Los Angeles, 2010). For evaluating eye and vision disorders, these criteria may accurately depict the preventable and correctable burden that could potentially be alleviated through public health measures. Studies evaluating the use of these criteria for eye and vision health in the health department priority-setting processes would be particularly useful to serve as a model for implementation across the country.

BOX 5-5

Prioritizing Issues in a Community Health Improvement Process.

In 2006 the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors with the support of the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, convened a workshop on chronic disease program integration because of its growing interest in state public health agencies. Participants developed a list of eight principles for state health agencies to use as a guide for supporting chronic disease program integration initiatives. These principles can be instructive in the context of vision impairment:

1.

Engage state health agency leadership,

2.

Develop crosscutting epidemiology and surveillance programs,

3.

Leverage the use of information technology,

4.

Build state and local partnerships,

5.

Develop integrated state plans,

6.

Engage management and administration,

7.

Implement integrated interventions, and

8.

Evaluate integration activities. (Slonim et al., 2007)

The strategic alignment of resources includes combining programs or activities that currently focus on a particular topic, but it also includes the integration of new yet complementary topics into existing programs. This integration affords the opportunity to address upstream determinants of health that span health conditions beyond eye and vision health across the spectrum, yet are seldom the primary purview of any single program. When evaluating whether eye and vision health rises to the level of a “top priority” within a given community, the committee encourages governmental PHDs, policy makers, private industry, nonprofit organizations, the media, the public, and other stakeholders to carefully consider the scope of the problems associated with vision impairment, the availability of treatments to effectively and relatively easily correct or reverse vision impairment for millions of people, the lack of knowledge about relatively simple behaviors that can reduce the risk of vision loss, and the wide range of strategies available to ensure that eye and vision health are present within formal programmatic designs.

Strategies to Improve Accountability for Eye and Vision Health

Holding organizations accountable for specific eye and vision health outcomes will be difficult for several reasons. First, there are numerous problems related to basic surveillance of the prevalence and impact of vision impairment from an epidemiological perspective, as described in Chapter 4. Second, because vision impairment can both contribute to and result from other chronic conditions, it can be difficult to eliminate the effects of confounding variables and ascertain the effects of specific variables on eye and vision health metrics. Third, all health outcomes in a community naturally shift and change over time, regardless of whether a public health intervention has been implemented. Fourth, there is a lack of evidence-based research documenting the characteristics and long-term impact of known community-based interventions across representative populations. For example, the Healthy People 2020 website lists systematic reviews for interventions that are strongly supported in the literature to accomplish goals related to eye and vision health (ODPHP, 2016f). Only three resources are listed, and two of them apply to clinical services.¹⁵ The community-based intervention pertains to health communication and social marketing in general. The same problems are not as prevalent for clinical interventions in the context of eye and vision health. Fifth, because there is little research available about the effect of specific interventions, there is even less information about how and whether to scale those interventions to benefit different populations in different geographic locations. Sixth, because vision loss and impairment can be the cumulative effect of multiple exposures over the lifespan, it can take decades to determine whether a particular public health intervention has had an impact. Finally, there are other challenges associated with aligning the missions of diverse population-health partnerships, which may affect the outcomes most relevant to particular groups.

Despite these challenges, strategies are available to enhance accountability for population-health activities intended to advance eye and vision health. For instance, public health agencies and departments can support collaborative efforts by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data related to the targeted public health problem. Public health agencies could track and report progress related to the 10 essential public health services (see Chapter 1), across a variety of actors. As discussed in Chapter 4, this may involve combining eye-specific databases and those that track other chronic conditions or health determinants. Vision impairment should be added to chronic disease surveillance systems. Government public health agencies “can also serve as managers or facilitators of incentives that both reward and serve as a tool for holding stakeholders accountable (i.e., driving other sectors to demonstrate accountability on contributions to health improvement) in some cases on behalf of the community in general or a community group” (IOM, 2011c, p. 123).

To improve the quality, effectiveness, and consistency of public health services, the IOM and other organizations have identified national accreditation as a mechanism by which to improve accountability (see, e.g., IOM, 2012c). The expansion of the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) process for quality standards and measurement has the potential to assure accountability, improve public health service delivery, and offer a better understanding of which public health programs are working and which need to be improved (PHAB, n.d.). The committee recognizes that the national accreditation effort is not mature, continues to evolve, and must remain dynamic and responsive to a changing system. Moreover, as described above, although some states have maintained their own accreditation process, there are significant variations across states regarding the process. As the accreditation standards for required public health services and measures evolve, there may be an opportunity to mandate components related to vision impairment, such as the number of at-risk people who receive an eye examination, which could address disparities in access to care. In the absence of a specific vision components, there are also opportunities to incorporate eye and vision health metrics into health impact assessments and community health assessments and improvement plans, which are required elements for accreditation.

Health impact assessments Efforts to examine the ramifications of policy decisions on health outcomes are becoming possible through the use of tools, such as health-impact assessments, as part of the “health-in-all-policies” movement (CDC, 2015b; Koivusalo, 2010). The National Research Council defines a health impact assessment (HIA) as “a systematic process that uses an array of data sources and analytic methods and considers input from stakeholders to determine the potential effects of a proposed policy, plan, program, or project on the health of the population” (NRC, 2011, p. 5). As part of the requirements for public health accreditation, many state and LHDs conduct a systematic HIA on a regular basis. Through the HIA process, LHDs systematically collect and analyze data to identify the community's health needs, establish priorities for programs and investments, devise metrics for ongoing evaluation and quality assurance (PHAB, 2013), and monitor progress toward meeting health improvement objectives (i.e., developing and implementing a health improvement plan) (ASTHO, 2016; Rubin et al., 2015). Eye and vision health, however, is not commonly part of these assessments and plans (Shin and Finnegan, 2009) (see Chapter 4). PHBA could develop an eye and vision HIA module and offer appropriate guidance for data collection and analysis.

Community health assessments and planning A community health assessment and community health improvement plan are required for accreditation. Additionally, changes in the health care environment, particularly the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), offer specific opportunities for health departments to be significant actors and partners in vision and eye health. First, under the ACA, nonprofit hospitals and health systems must conduct a community health needs assessment (CHNA) in conjunction with the LHD in their catchment area at least once every 3 years and implement a community health improvement plan to address the identified priorities. The CHNA process is a convenient mechanism for identifying those with visual impairment who are likely to need educational accommodation, along with income and other social supports. Second, vision is an element of the Healthy People 2020 objectives. According to the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,

The Healthy People 2020 Vision objectives focus on evidence-based interventions to preserve sight and prevent blindness. Objectives address screening and examinations for children and adults, early detection and timely treatment of eye diseases and conditions, injury prevention, and the use of vision rehabilitation services. (ODPHP, 2016e)

Third, the ACA created the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council with a process to set a national prevention strategy. The national prevention strategy could be a mechanism for promoting eye health, especially in the context of uncorrected refractive error.

Valuing community-based prevention Beyond current actionable items, there is also interest in establishing effective frameworks and models to assess the value of community-based prevention services and different types of partnerships. Although this area is still in the early stages, frameworks have been developed by the IOM and other organizations to guide communities, PHDs, and policy makers, among others, in thinking about quantifying the relationship between benefits and harms in terms of community health, well-being, and process and resource utilization (IOM, 2012a). Evaluating the impact of public–private partnerships will also be difficult. Partnerships vary in the scope, objectives, stakeholders involved, and the inclusion of multifaceted interventions to resolve complex health problems. As a result, improvements in public health outcomes cannot always be reliably attributed to the actions of a partnership. In addition, partnership goals may be ambiguous or may shift over time, making it difficult to even define program success (Smith et al., 2009). Research into the effectiveness of public–private partnerships is generally limited, and many existing analyses conclude that further research is needed (Pedersen et al., 2015; Vrangbaek, 2008). Arthur Himmelman has suggested a matrix of strategies for working together, which includes networking, coordinating, cooperating, and collaborating, which may be good starting points from which to develop specific evaluation metrics (Himmelman, 2002). Population health research agendas would benefit from increased attention and support related to the systematic evaluation and valuation of the types of activities explored in this chapter. Evidence of their effectiveness would likely drive greater attention and provide more information on how best to target limited resources in order to best benefit population eye and vision health in various communities.

To better assist with the evaluation of the impact of specific interventions and programs and increase the accountability of specific governmental PHDs related to eye and vision health, it will be important to have additional information available to both establish a baseline for improvement and determine whether improvements in population eye and vision health have occurred. To this end, Box 5-6 provides a list of key research gaps that have been mentioned throughout this chapter.

BOX 5-6

Key Research Gaps.

CONCLUSION

Governmental PHDs are a critical lynchpin to advancing eye and vision health, but they are constrained by the current level of resources available and the overall emphasis of public health on communicable diseases and emergency preparedness. Governmental PHDs provide a range of services to promote population health, but capacity to provide these services is contingent on adequate and sustained resources (e.g., funding, personnel, and expertise) to meet increasing demands. It will be difficult to achieve better eye and vision health at a national level given current funding levels.

Because the role of governmental PHDs varies from the federal to the state and to the local level, and also by the specific organizational structure and resources of LHDs, advancing eye and vision health requires a broad range of activities that varies by jurisdiction based on available infrastructure, resource, and need. Short- and long-term population health strategies should address the broad determinants of health, including policies that influence individual behaviors, healthy environments, and social conditions, because of their potential impact on eye and vision health. Enhancing public awareness of the etiology, causes, and risk factors related to eye and vision health, as well as the behaviors that effectively reduce the risk of vision loss, is an important and essential first step to establishing eye and vision health as a public health priority. However, public awareness and education alone will not be sufficient. Eye and vision health promotion will require varied strategies to influence both individuals and to create social and physical environments that support those behaviors. This may include policies and regulations that encourage the use of protective eyewear in hazardous work environments and during some recreational activities; that expand access to essential eye and vision screenings, examinations, and treatments; and that encourage eye-friendly building design. It may also require governmental PHDs and other critical stakeholders to integrate eye and vision health as a complementary element within existing public health programs, especially those related to chronic diseases. Public health can facilitate the development of clinical care systems that assure the organized delivery of care to everyone in their jurisdiction (see Chapters 7 and 8).

Establishing a wide range of partnerships can help expand governmental PHDs capacity by either providing additional resources to expand services related to eye and vision health or by providing necessary clinical services in community environments, which could allow governmental PHDs to focus on other essential public health services in eye and vision health such as coordination of clinical care systems and community-based efforts. Partnerships should include a variety of stakeholders from the community, clinical care systems, employers and businesses, the media, nonprofit organizations, the education sector, and government agencies—including those that have already made substantial contributions to the field, as well as stakeholders for whom optimal eye and vision health may be a non-explicit but nevertheless mission-specific objective. These partnerships can complement existing federal, state, and local funding and activities and future efforts to integrate eye and vision health into public health messaging, research, policy and practice, as well as across agencies, departments, and institutes in order to maximize efficiencies and enhance public health capacities.

Improving the accountability of governmental PHDs and health care systems will be important to increasing the visibility of community eye and vision health. This will require formal responsibility to incorporate objectives related to eye and vision health into existing public health and health care initiatives, to measure the impact of specific interventions, and to evaluate the availability of resources necessary to scale effective interventions that benefit the most at-risk populations. Establishing eye and vision health as public health priorities will not be easy due to limitations in public health capacities, surveillance challenges, limited evidence-based research, among other challenges. However, the chronic nature of many vision impairments and their impact on other chronic diseases and health determinants require federal, state, and local governments and other diverse yet critical stakeholders to carefully and collaboratively consider the potential benefits and available opportunities to increase the prominence of eye and vision health among current population health priorities. Preventing disability and poor quality of life from preventable, modifiable, or correctable vision impairment is a health imperative in its own right. It is time to meet that challenge head on.

REFERENCES

• AAO (American Academy of Ophthalmology). Vision screening for infants and children—2013. 2013. [April 7, 2016]. http://www​.aao.org/clinical-statement​/vision-screening-infants-children-2013>.
• AAO (American Academy of Ophthalmology). Halloween warning from ophthalmologists: Over-the-counter contact lenses could contain dangerous chemicals. 2015. [July 12, 2016]. http://www​.aao.org/newsroom​/news-releases​/detail/halloween-warning-from-ophthalmologists-over-count.
• AAO (American Academy of Ophthalmology). Eye injuries at work. 2016a. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.aao.org/eye-health​/tips-prevention/injurieswork.
• AAO (American Academy of Ophthalmology). Online referral center. 2016b. [July 11, 2016]. https://secure​.eyecareamerica​.org/onlinematch/default​.aspx?lang​=en-US&refresh=1.
• AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). AAP publications reaffirmed and retired. Pediatrics. 2011;128(3):e748. (referencing Committee on Sports Medicine & Fitness 2004. Protective eyewear for young athletes. Pediatrics 113(3):619–622.
• AAPOS (American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus). State-by-state vision screening requirements. 2011. [April 7, 2016]. http://www​.aapos.org​/resources/state_by_state​_vision_screening_requirements/
• Abulafia A, Segev F, Platner E, Ben Simon GJ. Party foam-induced eye injuries and the power of media intervention. Cornea. 2013;32(6):826–829. [PubMed: 23132449]
• AFB (American Foundation for the Blind). Accessible mass transit. 2016a. [April 7, 2016]. http://www​.afb.org/info​/living-with-vision-loss​/getting-around​/accessible-mass-transit/235.
• AFB (American Foundation for the Blind). Creating a comfortable environment for people with low vision. 2016b. [April 7, 2016]. http://www​.afb.org/info​/low-vision/living-with-low-vision​/creating-a-comfortable-environment-forpeople-with-low-vision​/235.
• Al Sayah F, Majumdar SR, Egede LE, Johnson JA. Associations between health literacy and health outcomes in a predominantly low-income African American population with type 2 diabetes. Journal of Health Communication. 2015;20(5):581–588. [PubMed: 25826448]
• Alberti CF, Peli E, Bowers AR. Driving with hemianopia: III. Detection of stationary and approaching pedestrians in a simulator. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2014;55(1):368–374. [PMC free article: PMC3900270] [PubMed: 24346175]
• Alexander RL, Miller NA, Cotch MF, Janiszewski R. Factors that influence the receipt of eye care. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2008;32(5):547–556. [PMC free article: PMC2941200] [PubMed: 18241139]
• Alvi RA, Justason L, Liotta C, Martinez-Helfman S, Dennis K, Croker SP, Leiby BE, Levin AV. The Eagles Eye mobile: Assessing its ability to deliver eye care in a high-risk community. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2015;52(2):98–105. [PubMed: 25798708]
• AMD (Age-related Macular Degeneration) Alliance International. Awareness of age-related macular degeneration and associated risk factors. Toronto, Ontario: AMD Alliance International; 2005.
• Anderson G. Chronic care: Making the case for ongoing care. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2010.
• Anderson L. How a San Francisco architect reframes design for the blind. 2014. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.curbed.com​/2014/8/6/10064320/how-a-san-francisco-architect-reframed-design-for-theblind.
• AOA (American Optometric Association). Third annual American Optometric Association American Eye-Q survey. 2008. [July 25, 2016]. http://texas​.aoa.org​/documents/2008-Eye-Q-ExecutiveSummary​.pdf.
• AOA (American Optometric Association). Infantsee^®. 2012. [July 11, 2016]. http://www​.infantsee.org.
• AOA (American Optometric Association). HEHP projects. 2014. 2014. [February 4, 2016]. http://www​.aoafoundation​.org/hehp/hehp-projects​/2014hehp-projects.
• AOA (American Optometric Association). School-aged vision: 6 to 18 years of age. 2016. [July 11, 2016]. http://www​.aoa.org/patients-andpublic​/good-vision-throughout-life​/childrens-vision​/school-aged-vision-6-to-18-years-ofage?sso=y.
• AOA Foundation. How the program operates. 2016. [July 11, 2016]. http://www​.aoafoundation​.org/visionusa/how-the-program-operates.
• Arnold RW, Stark L, Leman R, Arnold KK, Armitage MD. Tent photoscreening and patched HOTV visual acuity by school nurses: Validation of the ASD–ABCD protocol. (Anchorage School District–Alaska Blind Child Discovery Program). Binocular Vision & Strabismus Quarterly. 2008;23(2):83–94. [PubMed: 18702611]
• Asfar T, Lam BL, Lee DJ. Smoking causes blindness: Time for eye care professionals to join the fight against tobacco. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2015;56(2):1120–1121. [PubMed: 25680974]
• ASTHO (Association of State and Territorial Health Officials). State and local health department governance classification system. 2012. [July 7, 2016]. http://www​.astho.org​/Research/Data-andAnalysis​/State-and-Local-Governance-Classification-Tree.
• ASTHO (Association of State and Territorial Health Officials). ASTHO profile of state public health, volume three. Arlington, VA: ASTHO; 2014.
• ASTHO (Association of State and Territorial Health Officials). Community health needs assessments. 2016. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.astho.org​/Programs/Access/Community-Health-Needs-Assessments.
• Asvat Y, Cao D, Africk JJ, Matthews A, King A. Feasibility and effectiveness of a community-based smoking cessation intervention in a racially diverse, urban smoker cohort. American Journal of Public Health. 2014;104(Suppl 4):S620–S627. [PMC free article: PMC4151884] [PubMed: 25100429]
• Bailey RN, Indian RW, Zhang X, Geiss LS, Duenas MR, Saaddine JB. Visual impairment and eye care among older adults—Five states, 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2006;55(49):1321–1325. [PubMed: 17167393]
• Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS, Nurss J. The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. American Journal of Public Health. 1997;87(6):1027–1030. [PMC free article: PMC1380944] [PubMed: 9224190]
• Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, Scott T, Parker RM, Green D, Ren J, Peel J. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. American Journal of Public Health. 2002;92(8):1278–1283. [PMC free article: PMC1447230] [PubMed: 12144984]
• Bala MM, Strzeszynski L, Topor-Madry R, Cahill K. Mass media interventions for smoking cessation in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;6:Cd004704. [PubMed: 23744348]
• Barnhardt C, Cotter SA, Mitchell GL, Scheiman M, Kulp MT., CITT Study Group. Symptoms in children with convergence insufficiency: Before and after treatment. Optometry & Vision Science. 2012;89(10):1512–1520. [PMC free article: PMC3461822] [PubMed: 22922781]
• Bayliss EA, Bonds DE, Boyd CM, Davis MM, Finke B, Fox MH, Glasgow RE, Goodman RA, Heurtin-Roberts S, Lachenmayr S, Lind C, Madigan EA, Meyers DS, Mintz S, Nilsen WJ, Okun S, Ruiz S, Salive ME, Stange KC. Understanding the context of health for persons with multiple chronic conditions: Moving from what is the matter to what matters. Annals of Family Medicine. 2014;12(3):260–269. [PMC free article: PMC4018375] [PubMed: 24821898]
• Behar-Cohen F, Baillet G, de Ayguavives T, Garcia PO, Krutmann J, Pena-Garcia P, Reme C, Wolffsohn JS. Ultraviolet damage to the eye revisited: Eye-sun protection factor (E-SPF (R)), a new ultraviolet protection label for eyewear. Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology. 2014;8:87–104. [PMC free article: PMC3872277] [PubMed: 24379652]
• Beitsch LM, Leep C, Shah G, Brooks RG, Pestronk RM. Quality improvement in local health departments: Results of the NACCHO 2008 survey. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2010;16(1):49–54. [PubMed: 20009644]
• Benjamin G, Fallon M, Jarris PE, Libbey P. Final recommendations for a voluntary national accreditation program for state and local public health departments. Alexandria, VA: Public Health Accreditation Board; 2006.
• Bennett CL, Ferreira MR, Davis TC, Kaplan J, Weinberger M, Kuzel T, Seday MA, Sartor O. Relation between literacy, race, and stage of presentation among low-income patients with prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1998;16(9):3101–3104. [PubMed: 9738581]
• Beynat J, Charles A, Astruc K, Metral P, Chirpaz L, Bron AM, Creuzot-Garcher C. Screening for diabetic retinopathy in a rural French population with a mobile non-mydriatic camera. Diabetes & Metabolism. 2009;35(1):49–56. [PubMed: 19097818]
• Blehm C, Vishnu S, Khattak A, Mitra S, Yee RW. Computer vision syndrome: A review. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2005;50(3):253–262. [PubMed: 15850814]
• Boone JE, Gordon-Larsen P, Adair LS, Popkin BM. Screen time and physical activity during adolescence: Longitudinal effects on obesity in young adulthood. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2007;4:26. [PMC free article: PMC1906831] [PubMed: 17559668]
• Boucher MC, Desroches G, Garcia-Salinas R, Kherani A, Maberley D, Olivier S, Oh M, Stockl F. Teleophthalmology screening for diabetic retinopathy through mobile imaging units within Canada. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2008;43(6):658–668. [PubMed: 19020631]
• Bowers AR, Mandel AJ, Goldstein RB, Peli E. Driving with hemianopia, I: Detection performance in a driving simulator. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2009;50(11):5137–5147. [PMC free article: PMC2783572] [PubMed: 19608541]
• Bray JE, Straney L, Barger B, Finn J. Effect of public awareness campaigns on calls to ambulance across Australia. Stroke. 2015;46(5):1377–1380. [PubMed: 25828236]
• Bronstad PM, Bowers AR, Albu A, Goldstein R, Peli E. Driving with central field loss I: Effect of central scotomas on responses to hazards. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2013;131(3):303–309. [PMC free article: PMC3605225] [PubMed: 23329309]
• Brooks RG, Beitsch LM, Street P, Chukmaitov A. Aligning public health financing with essential public health service functions and national public health performance standards. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2009;15(4):299–306. [PubMed: 19525774]
• Caban-Martinez AJ, Davila EP, Lam BL, Dubovy SR, McCollister KE, Fleming LE, Zheng DD, Lee DJ. Age-related macular degeneration and smoking cessation advice by eye care providers: A pilot study. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2011;8(6):A147. [PMC free article: PMC3221586] [PubMed: 22005640]
• Carmona RH. Health literacy: Key to improving American’s health. 2003. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.surgeongeneral​.gov/news/speeches​/healthlit09192003.html.
• Castanes MS. Major review: The underutilization of vision screening (for amblyopia, optical anomalies and strabismus) among preschool age children. Binocular Vision & Strabismus Quarterly. 2003;18(4):217–232. [PubMed: 14653775]
• CBO (Congressional Budget Office). Federal grants to state and local governments. Washington, DC: CBO; 2013.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Improving the nation’s vision health: A coordinated public health approach. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2007.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Why is vision loss a public health problem? 2009. [October 7, 2015]. http://www​.cdc.gov/visionhealth​/basic_information​/vision_loss.htm.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Eye health tips. 2012. [September 17, 2015]. http://www​.cdc.gov/visionhealth​/basic_information​/eye_health_tips.htm.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Eye safety. 2013a. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/niosh​/topics/eye/eyechecklist.html.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Eye safety tool box talk—Instructor’s guide. 2013b. [September 11, 2015]. http://www​.cdc.gov/niosh​/topics/eye/pdfs/instructor.pdf.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The National Program to Eliminate Diabetes-Related Disparities in Vulnerable Populations. 2014a. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/diabetes​/prevention/pdf​/vulnerablepopulationsfactsheet.pdf.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The public health system and the 10 essential public health services. 2014b. [March, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/nphpsp​/essentialservices.html.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). About us. 2015a. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/visionhealth​/about/index.htm.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Health in all policies. 2015b. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/policy/hiap/
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). NIOSH programs. 2015c. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/niosh/programs.html.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Powerful new “tips from former smokers” ads focus on living with vision loss and colorectal cancer. 2015d. [June 13, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/media​/releases/2015/p0326-tips.html.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Prevention status reports. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2015e.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). PHHS block grant. 2015f. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/phhsblockgrant​/statehpprior.htm#i.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Protect your eyes. 2015g. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/contactlenses​/protect-your-eyes.html.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). CDC programs addressing social determinants of health. 2016a. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants​/cdcprograms/index.htm.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Keep an eye on vision health. 2016b. [July 12, 2016]. http://www​.cdc.gov/features​/healthyvision.
• CDPH (Connecticut Department of Public Health). Health alert! Keeping an eye on eye protection. Hartford: CDPH; 2008.
• Chakravarthy U, Wong TY, Fletcher A, Piault E, Evans C, Zlateva G, Buggage R, Pleil A, Mitchell P. Clinical risk factors for age-related macular degeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmology. 2010;10:31. [PMC free article: PMC3009619] [PubMed: 21144031]
• Chang FC, Chung CH, Chuang YC, Hu TW, Yu PT, Chao KY, Hsiao ML. Effect of media campaigns and smoke-free ordinance on public awareness and secondhand smoke exposure in Taiwan. Journal of Health Communication. 2011;16(4):343–358. [PubMed: 21240721]
• Chase C, Tosha C, Borsting E, Ridder WH 3rd. Visual discomfort and objective measures of static accommodation. Optometry & Vision Science. 2009;86(7):883–889. [PubMed: 19521268]
• Chen YF, Madan J, Welton N, Yahaya I, Aveyard P, Bauld L, Wang D, Fry-Smith A, Munafo MR. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computer and other electronic aids for smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Health Technology Assessment. 2012;16(38) [PubMed: 23046909]
• Chorley AC, Evans BJ, Benwell MJ. Civilian pilot exposure to ultraviolet and blue light and pilot use of sunglasses. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 2011;82(9):895–900. [PubMed: 21888274]
• Chorley AC, Evans BJ, Benwell MJ. Solar eye protection practices of civilian aircrew. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance. 2015;86(11):953–961. [PubMed: 26564760]
• Chorley AC, Baczynska KA, Benwell MJ, Evans BJ, Higlett MP, Khazova M, O’Hagan JB. Occupational ocular UV exposure in civilian aircrew. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance. 2016;87(1):32–39. [PubMed: 26735231]
• Chou CF, Barker LE, Crews JE, Primo SA, Zhang X, Elliott AF, McKeever Bullard K, Geiss LS, Saaddine JB. Disparities in eye care utilization among the United States adults with visual impairment: Findings from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2006–2009. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2012;154(6 Suppl):S45–S52. e41. [PubMed: 23158223]
• Chou CF, Sherrod CE, Zhang X, Barker LE, Bullard KM, Crews JE, Saaddine JB. Barriers to eye care among people aged 40 years and older with diagnosed diabetes, 2006–2010. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):180–188. [PMC free article: PMC4930070] [PubMed: 24009300]
• Chou WYS, Hunt YM, Beckjord EB, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Social media use in the United States: Implications for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2009;11(4):e48. [PMC free article: PMC2802563] [PubMed: 19945947]
• Chou WYS, Prestin A, Lyons C, Wen KY. Web 2.0 for health promotion: Reviewing the current evidence. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103(1):e9–e18. [PMC free article: PMC3518341] [PubMed: 23153164]
• Christ SL, Zheng DD, Swenor BK, Lam BL, West SK, Tannenbaum SL, Muñoz BE, Lee DJ. Longitudinal relationships among visual acuity, daily functional status, and mortality: The Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2014;132(12):1400–1406. [PMC free article: PMC7894742] [PubMed: 25144579]
• Cimasi RJ, Sharamitaro AR, Seiler RL. The association between health literacy and preventable hospitalizations in Missouri: Implications in an era of reform. Journal of Health Care Finance. 2013;40(2):1–16. [PubMed: 24551959]
• Citek K. Anti-reflective coatings reflect ultraviolet radiation. Optometry. 2008;79(3):143–148. [PubMed: 18302957]
• City of New York. Partnership with Warby Parker. 2016. [July 11, 2016]. http://www1​.nyc.gov/site​/communityschools​/schools-and-partners​/partnership-with-warby-parker.page.
• CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). Physical and mental health condition prevalence and comorbidity among fee-for-service Medicare-Medicaid enrollees. Washington, DC: CMS; 2014.
• CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). Condition categories. 2016. [March 18, 2016]. https://www​.ccwdata.org​/web/guest/condition-categories.
• Coleman AL, Seitzman RL, Cummings SR, Yu F, Cauley JA, Ensrud KE, Stone KL, Hochberg MC, Pedula KL, Thomas E, Mangione CM., the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. The association of smoking and alcohol use with age-related macular degeneration in the oldest old: The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2010;149(1):160–169. [PMC free article: PMC3068844] [PubMed: 19796757]
• Collier SA, Gronostaj MP, MacGurn AK, Cope JR, Awsumb KL, Yoder JS, Beach MJ. Estimated burden of keratitis—United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2014;63(45):1027–1030. [PMC free article: PMC5779494] [PubMed: 25393221]
• Cong R, Zhou B, Sun Q, Gu H, Tang N, Wang B. Smoking and the risk of age-related macular degeneration: A meta-analysis. Annals of Epidemiology. 2008;18(8):647–656. [PubMed: 18652983]
• Convissor RB, Vollinger RE Jr, Wilbur P. Using national news events to stimulate local awareness of public policy issues. Public Health Reports. 1990;105(3):257–260. [PMC free article: PMC1580011] [PubMed: 2113684]
• Cope JR, Collier SA, Rao MM, Chalmers R, Mitchell GL, Richdale K, Wagner H, Kinoshita BT, Lam DY, Sorbara L, Zimmerman A, Yoder JS, Beach MJ. Contact lens wearer demographics and risk behaviors for contact lens–related eye infections—United States, 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2015;64(32):865–870. [PMC free article: PMC5779588] [PubMed: 26292204]
• Council on Communications and Media. Children, adolescents, obesity, and the media. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):201–208. [PubMed: 21708800]
• Court H, McLean G, Guthrie B, Mercer SW, Smith DJ. Visual impairment is associated with physical and mental comorbidities in older adults: A cross-sectional study. BMC Medicine. 2014;12:181. [PMC free article: PMC4200167] [PubMed: 25603915]
• CPSTF (Community Preventive Services Task Force). Health communication and social marketing: Health communication campaigns that include mass media and health-related product distribution. Guide to Community Preventive Services. 2010. [June 10, 2016]. http://www​.thecommunityguide​.org/healthcommunication​/campaigns.html.
• CPSTF (Community Preventive Services Task Force). Preventing skin cancer: Multicomponent community-wide interventions. Guide to Community Preventive Services. 2014. [June 1, 2016]. http://www​.thecommunityguide​.org/cancer/skin​/community-wide/multicomponent.html.
• CPWR (Center for Protection of Workers’ Rights). Eye protection. 2014. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.cpwr.com/sites​/default/files/publications​/CPWR_Eye_Protection_2.pdf.
• Dahlin Ivanoff S, Sonn U, Svensson E. A health education program for elderly persons with visual impairments and perceived security in the performance of daily occupations: A randomized study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2002;56(3):322–330. [PubMed: 12058521]
• Dannenberg AL, Frumkin H, Jackson RJ. Making healthy places: Designing and building for health, well-being, and sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2011.
• Davidson S, Quinn GE. The impact of pediatric vision disorders in adulthood. Pediatrics. 2011;127(2):334–339. [PubMed: 21199855]
• DeAngelis MM, Ji F, Kim IK, Adams S, Capone A Jr, Ott J, Miller JW, Dryja TP. Cigarette smoking, CFH, APOE, ELOV14, and risk of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2007;125(1):49–54. [PubMed: 17210851]
• DeHaven MJ, Hunter IB, Wilder L, Walton JW, Berry J. Health programs in faith-based organizations: Are they effective? American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94(6):1030–1036. [PMC free article: PMC1448385] [PubMed: 15249311]
• Delcourt C, Delyfer MN, Rougier MB, Amouyel P, Colin J, Le Goff M, Malet F, Dartigues JF, Lambert JC, Korobelnik JF. Associations of complement factor H and smoking with early age-related macular degeneration: The alienor study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2011;52(8):5955–5962. [PubMed: 21642625]
• Department of Public Health County of Los Angeles. Priority-setting in public health. Los Angeles, CA: Quality Improvement Division; 2010.
• DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice). Americans with Disabilities Act: Guide for place of lodging: Serving guests who are blind or who have low vision. 2001. [August 14, 2016]. https://www​.ada.gov/lodblind.htm.
• DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice). ADA update: A primer for state and local governments. Washington, DC: DOJ; 2015.
• DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice). Americans with Disabilities Act: Guide for places of lodging: Serving guests who are blind or who have low vision. [July 11, 2016]. n.d. https://www​.ada.gov/reachingout​/lodblind(lesson2).html.
• Dolgin E. The myopia boom. Nature. 2015;519(7543):276–278. [PubMed: 25788077]
• Donshik PC, Ehlers WH, Anderson LD, Suchecki JK. Strategies to better engage, educate, and empower patient compliance and safe lens wear: Compliance: What we know, what we do not know, and what we need to know. Eye & Contact Lens. 2007;33(6 Pt 2):430–433. discussion 434. [PubMed: 17975441]
• Doran CM, Ling R, Byrnes J, Crane M, Shakeshaft AP, Searles A, Perez D. Benefit cost analysis of three skin cancer public education mass-media campaigns implemented in New South Wales, Australia. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1):e0147665. [PMC free article: PMC4732951] [PubMed: 26824695]
• Doyle J, Armstrong R, Waters E. Issues raised in systematic reviews of complex multisectoral and community based interventions. Journal of Public Health (Oxford). 2008;30(2):213–215. [PubMed: 18445611]
• Durkin S, Brennan E, Wakefield M. Mass media campaigns to promote smoking cessation among adults: An integrative review. Tobacco Control. 2012;21(2):127–138. [PubMed: 22345235]
• Earle-Richardson G, Wyckoff L, Carrasquillo M, Scribani M, Jenkins P, May J. Evaluation of a community-based participatory farmworker eye health intervention in the “black dirt” region of New York State. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2014;57(9):1053–1063. [PubMed: 25060189]
• Edwards R, Thornton J, Ajit R, Harrison RA, Kelly SP. Cigarette smoking and primary open angle glaucoma: A systematic review. Journal of Glaucoma. 2008;17(7):558–566. [PubMed: 18854733]
• Eime R, Owen N, Finch C. Protective eyewear promotion: Applying principles of behaviour change in the design of a squash injury prevention programme. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2004;34(10):629–638. [PubMed: 15335240]
• Eime R, Finch C, Wolfe R, Owen N, McCarty C. The effectiveness of a squash eyewear promotion strategy. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2005;39(9):681–685. [PMC free article: PMC1725311] [PubMed: 16118310]
• Eklund K, Sonn U, Dahlin Ivanoff S. Long-term evaluation of a health education programme for elderly persons with visual impairment. A randomized study. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2004;26(7):401–409. [PubMed: 15204476]
• Eklund K, Sonn U, Nystedt P, Dahlin Ivanoff S. A cost-effectiveness analysis of a health education programme for elderly persons with age-related macular degeneration: A longitudinal study. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2005;27(20):1203–1212. [PubMed: 16298922]
• Eklund K, Sjöstrand J, Dahlin Ivanoff S. A randomized controlled trial of a health-promotion programme and its effect on ADL dependence and self-reported health problems for the elderly visually impaired. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2008;15(2):68–74. [PubMed: 17852958]
• Ellish NJ, Royak-Schaler R, Higginbotham EJ. Tailored and targeted interventions to encourage dilated fundus examinations in older African Americans. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2011;129(12):1592–1598. [PMC free article: PMC3534730] [PubMed: 22159679]
• EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). What is green infrastructure? 2015. [April 7, 2016]. https://www​.epa.gov/green-infrastructure​/what-green-infrastructure.
• Ethan D, Basch CE. Promoting healthy vision in students: Progress and challenges in policy, programs, and research. Journal of School Health. 2008;78(8):411–416. [PubMed: 18651927]
• Evans JR, Fletcher AE, Wormald RP. 28,000 cases of age related macular degeneration causing visual loss in people aged 75 years and above in the United Kingdom may be attributable to smoking. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2005;89(5):550–553. [PMC free article: PMC1772624] [PubMed: 15834082]
• FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). Decorative, non-corrective contact lenses. 2006. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.fda.gov/MedicalDevices​/DeviceRegulationandGuidance​/GuidanceDocuments/ucm071572.htm.
• Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Quadrel MJ. Risk perception and communication. Annual Reviews of Public Health. 1993;14:183–203. [PubMed: 8323585]
• Fischhoff B, Detels R, Beaglehole R, Lansing M, Gulliford M. Oxford Textbook of Public Health, Volume 2: The methods of public health. 5th ed. 2009. pp. 940–953. (Risk perception and communication).
• Ford ES, Croft JB, Posner SF, Goodman RA, Giles WH. Co-occurrence of leading lifestyle-related chronic conditions among adults in the United States, 2002–2009. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2013;10:E60. [PMC free article: PMC3652715] [PubMed: 23618540]
• Forrest KY, Cali JM, Cavill WJ. Use of protective eyewear in U.S. adults: Results from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey. Ophthalmic Epidemiology. 2008;15(1):37–41. [PubMed: 18300087]
• Fosson GH, McCallum DM, Conaway MB. Antismoking mass media campaigns and support for smoke-free environments, Mobile County, Alabama, 2011–2012. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2014;11:E150. [PMC free article: PMC4157558] [PubMed: 25188275]
• Freedman RB, Jones SK, Lin A, Robin AL, Muir KW. Influence of parental health literacy and dosing responsibility on pediatric glaucoma medication adherence. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2012;130(3):306–311. [PMC free article: PMC3715130] [PubMed: 22411659]
• Frieden TR. A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(4):590–595. [PMC free article: PMC2836340] [PubMed: 20167880]
• Frohman EM, Fujimoto JG, Frohman TC, Calabresi PA, Cutter G, Balcer LJ. Optical coherence tomography: A window into the mechanisms of multiple sclerosis. Nature clinical practice. Neurology. 2008;4(12):664–675. [PMC free article: PMC2743162] [PubMed: 19043423]
• Galor A, Lee DJ. Effects of smoking on ocular health. Current Opinions in Ophthalmology. 2011;22(6):477–482. [PubMed: 21897240]
• Gao K, Wiederhold MD, Kong L, Wiederhold BK. Clinical experiment to assess effectiveness of virtual reality teen smoking cessation program. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2013;191:58–62. [PubMed: 23792843]
• Gebbie KM. The public health workforce: Enumeration 2000. Washington, DC: Health Resources and Services Administration; 2000.
• Gies P, Javorniczky J, Roy C, Henderson S. Measurements of the UVR protection provided by hats used at school. Photochemistry & Photobiology. 2006;82(3):750–754. [PubMed: 16483247]
• Glanz K, Saraiya M, Wechsler H. Guidelines for school programs to prevent skin cancer. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2002;51(RR04):1–16. [PubMed: 11995901]
• Glassman P. Health literacy. 2013. [April 6, 2016]. https://nnlm​.gov/outreach​/consumer/hlthlit.html.
• Glazier R, Slade M, Mayer H. The depiction of protective eyewear use in popular television programs. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2011;70(4):965–969. [PubMed: 20805771]
• Glewwe P, West K, Lee J. The impact of providing vision screening and free eyeglasses on academic outcomes: Evidence from a randomized trial in Title 1 elementary schools. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; 2014. [PMC free article: PMC5959017] [PubMed: 29693366]
• Goldstein MH, Wee D. Sports injuries: An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure. Eye & Contact Lens. 2011;37(3):160–163. [PubMed: 21471814]
• Goodman RA, Posner SF, Huang ES, Parekh AK, Koh HK. Defining and measuring chronic conditions: Imperatives for research, policy, program, and practice. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2013;10:E66. [PMC free article: PMC3652713] [PubMed: 23618546]
• Gordon G. Interior lighting for designers. New York: Wiley; 2003.
• Gowrisankaran S, Sheedy JE. Computer vision syndrome: A review. Work. 2015;52(2):303–314. [PubMed: 26519133]
• Griffith JF, Wilson R, Cimino HC, Patthoff M, Martin DF, Traboulsi EI. The use of a mobile van for school vision screening: Results of 63,841 evaluations. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016;163:108–114.e1. [PubMed: 26621684]
• GSA (U.S. General Services Administration). Green building certification system. Washington, DC: GSA; 2014.
• Guggenheim JA, Northstone K, McMahon G, Ness AR, Deere K, Mattocks C, Pourcain BS, Williams C. Time outdoors and physical activity as predictors of incident myopia in childhood: A prospective cohort study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2012;53(6):2856–2865. [PMC free article: PMC3367471] [PubMed: 22491403]
• Guo Y, Liu LJ, Xu L, Tang P, Lv YY, Feng Y, Meng M, Jonas JB. Myopic shift and outdoor activity among primary school children: One-year follow-up study in Beijing. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e75260. [PMC free article: PMC3782472] [PubMed: 24086484]
• Hammond V, Reeder AI, Gray A. Patterns of real-time occupational ultraviolet radiation exposure among a sample of outdoor workers in New Zealand. Public Health. 2009;123(2):182–187. [PubMed: 19181351]
• Hartmann EE, Bradford GE, Chaplin PK, Johnson T, Kemper AR, Kim S, Marsh-Tootle W. Project universal preschool vision screening: A demonstration project. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):e226–e237. [PubMed: 16452332]
• Haun JN, Patel NR, French DD, Campbell RR, Bradham DD, Lapcevic WA. Association between health literacy and medical care costs in an integrated healthcare system: A regional population based study. BMC Health Services Research. 2015;15(1):1–11. [PMC free article: PMC4482196] [PubMed: 26113118]
• Hautala N, Hyytinen P, Saarela V, Hagg P, Kurikka A, Runtti M, Tuulonen A. A mobile eye unit for screening of diabetic retinopathy and follow-up of glaucoma in remote locations in northern Finland. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2009;87(8):912–913. [PubMed: 19489759]
• Healthcare​.gov. Preventive health services. 2016. [May 18, 2016]. https://www​.healthcare​.gov/coverage/preventive-care-benefits.
• Hearne S, Castrucci BC, Leider JP, Rhoades EK, Russo P, Bass V. The future of urban health: Needs, barriers, opportunities, and policy advancement at large urban health departments. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2015;21(Suppl 1):S4–S13. [PMC free article: PMC4243797] [PubMed: 25423056]
• Hered RW, Wood DL. Preschool vision screening in primary care pediatric practice. Public Health Reports. 2013;128(3):189–197. [PMC free article: PMC3610071] [PubMed: 23633734]
• Hershey JC, Niederdeppe J, Evans WD, Nonnemaker J, Blahut S, Holden D, Messeri P, Haviland ML. The theory of “truth”: How counterindustry campaigns affect smoking behavior among teens. Health Psychology. 2005;24(1):22–31. [PubMed: 15631559]
• HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Multiple chronic conditions—A strategic framework: Optimum health and quality of life for individuals with multiple chronic conditions. Washington, DC: HHS; 2010a.
• HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). National action plan to improve health literacy. Washington, DC: HHS; 2010b.
• Himmelman A. Collaboration for a change: Definitions, descision-making models, roles, and collaboration process guide. Minneapolis, MN: Himmelman Consulting; 2002.
• Honoré PA, Schlechte T. State public health agency expenditures: Categorizing and comparing to performance levels. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2007;13(2):156–162. [PubMed: 17299319]
• HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration). Vision screening. [July 7, 2016]. n.d. http://www​.mchb.hrsa​.gov/programs/visionscreening/index.html.
• Hughes R, Ramdhanie K, Wassermann T, Moscetti C. State boards of health: Governance and politics. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2011;39:37–41. [PubMed: 21309894]
• Hwang T, Kim JT. Effects of indoor lighting on occupants’ visual comfort and eye health in a green building. Indoor and Built Environment. 2011;20(1):75–90.
• Imrie R, Kumar M. Focusing on disability and access in the built environment. Disability & Society. 1998;13(3):357–374.
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). The future of public health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1988. [PubMed: 25032306]
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). The future of the public’s health in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2003. [PubMed: 25057638]
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004. [PubMed: 25009856]
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). Early childhood obesity prevention policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011a. [PMC free article: PMC3262615] [PubMed: 22332102]
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). For the public’s health: Revitalizing law and policy to meet new challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011b.
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). For the public’s health: The role of measurement in action and accountability. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011c. [PubMed: 24983050]
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). For the public’s health: Investing in a healthier future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012a. [PubMed: 24830052]
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). An integrated framework for assessing the value of community-based prevention. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012b. [PubMed: 24901190]
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). Epilepsy across the spectrum: Promoting health and understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012. [PubMed: 22993876]
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). Strategies to improve cardiac arrest survival: A time to act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. [PubMed: 26225413]
• Jacobson PD, Wasserman J, Wu HW, Lauer JR. Assessing enrepreneurship in governmental public health. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105(S2):S318–S322. [PMC free article: PMC4355718] [PubMed: 25689182]
• Jaggernath J, Verland L, Ramson P, Kovai V, Chan VF, Naidoo KS. Poverty and eye health. Health. 2014;6(14):1849–1860.
• Jones HL, Walker EA, Schechter CB, Blanco E. Vision is precious: A successful behavioral intervention to increase the rate of screening for diabetic retinopathy for inner-city adults. Diabetes Educator. 2010;36(1):118–126. [PMC free article: PMC4582664] [PubMed: 20044537]
• Juzych MS, Randhawa S, Shukairy A, Kaushal P, Gupta A, Shalauta N. Functional health literacy in patients with glaucoma in urban settings. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2008;126(5):718–724. [PubMed: 18474786]
• Kaiser Family Foundation. Medicaid: A primer. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2013.
• Keay L, Stapleton F, Schein O. Epidemiology of contact lens-related inflammation and microbial keratitis: A 20-year perspective. Eye & Contact Lens. 2007;33(6 Pt 2):346–353. discussion 362–363. [PubMed: 17975418]
• Kemper AR, Helfrich A, Talbot J, Patel N, Crews JE. Improving the rate of preschool vision screening: An interrupted time-series analysis. Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):e1279–e1284. [PubMed: 21987706]
• Kemper AR, Helfrich A, Talbot J, Patel N. Outcomes of an elementary school-based vision screening program in North Carolina. Journal of School Nursing. 2012;28(1):24–30. [PubMed: 21970861]
• Kennedy RD, Spafford MM, Parkinson CM, Fong GT. Knowledge about the relationship between smoking and blindness in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia: Results from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Project. Optometry. 2011;82(5):310–317. [PMC free article: PMC4528643] [PubMed: 21524603]
• Khan JC, Thurlby DA, Shahid H, Clayton DG, Yates JR, Bradley M, Moore AT, Bird AC. Smoking and age related macular degeneration: The number of pack years of cigarette smoking is a major determinant of risk for both geographic atrophy and choroidal neovascularisation. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006;90(1):75–80. [PMC free article: PMC1856879] [PubMed: 16361672]
• Kim SS, Kim SH, Fang H, Kwon S, Shelley D, Ziedonis D. A culturally adapted smoking cessation intervention for Korean Americans: A mediating effect of perceived family norm toward quitting. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2015;17(4):1120–1129. [PMC free article: PMC4250475] [PubMed: 24878686]
• Kindig D, Stoddart G. What is population health? American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(3):380–383. [PMC free article: PMC1447747] [PubMed: 12604476]
• Klein R, Cruickshanks KJ, Nash SD, Krantz EM, Nieto FJ, Huang GH, Pankow JS, Klein BEK. The prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and associated risk factors: The Beaver Dam Offspring Study. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2010;128(6):750–758. [PMC free article: PMC2896217] [PubMed: 20547953]
• Kleinstein RN, Jones LA, Hullett S, Kwon S, Friedman RJ, Manny RE, Mutti DO, Yu JA, Zudnik K., Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study Group. Refractive error and ethnicity in children. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2003;121(8):1141–1147. [PubMed: 12912692]
• Kodjebacheva G, Brown ER, Estrada L, Yu F, Coleman AL. Uncorrected refractive error among first-grade students of different racial/ethnic groups in Southern California: Results a year after school-mandated vision screening. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2011;17(6):499–505. [PubMed: 21964359]
• Koh HK, Elqura LJ, Judge CM, Stoto MA. Regionalization of local public health systems in the era of preparedness. Annual Reviews of Public Health. 2008;29:205–218. [PubMed: 18348711]
• Koh HK, Brach C, Harris LM, Parchman ML. A proposed “health literate care model” would constitute a systems approach to improving patients’ engagement in care. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2013;32(2):357–367. [PMC free article: PMC5102011] [PubMed: 23381529]
• Koivusalo M. The state of health in all policies (HIAP) in the European Union: Potential and pitfalls. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2010;64(6):500–503. [PubMed: 20466719]
• Konkle KM. Exploring shared services collaboration in Wisconsin local public health agencies: A review of the literature. Madison: Institute for Wisconsin’s Health Inc; 2009.
• Korchak ME, Glazier RU, Slack RS, Plankey MW, Mayer HR. Protective eyewear use as depicted in children’s television programs. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2012;50(2):118–123. [PubMed: 23268748]
• Korda H, Itani Z. Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promotion Practice. 2013;14(1):15–23. [PubMed: 21558472]
• Krusen N. Home lighting: Understanding what, where and how much. OT Practice. 2010;15(19):8–9.
• Krutmann J, Behar-Cohen F, Baillet G, de Ayguavives T, Ortega Garcia P, Pena-Garcia P, Reme C, Wolffsohn J. Towards standardization of UV eye protection: What can be learned from photodermatology? Photodermatology, Photoimmunology, & Photo-medicine. 2014;30(2–3):128–136. [PubMed: 24303877]
• Kulp MT, Ciner E, Maguire M, Moore B, Pentimonti J, Pistilli M, Cyert L, Candy TR, Quinn G, Ying GS., for the VIP HIP Study Group. Uncorrected hyperopia and preschool early literacy: Results of the Vision in Preschoolers-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study. Ophthalmology. 123(4):681–689. [PMC free article: PMC4808323] [PubMed: 26826748]
• Kuzman T, Kutija MB, Masnec S, Jandrokovic S, Mrazovac D, Jurisic D, Skegro I, Kalauz M, Kordic R. Compliance among soft contact lens wearers. Collegium Antropologicum. 2014;38(4):1217–1221. [PubMed: 25842762]
• Kyle JW, Hammitt JK, Lim HW, Geller AC, Hall-Jordan LH, Maibach EW, De Fabo EC, Wagner MC. Economic evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s SunWise Program: Sun protection education for young children. Pediatrics. 2008;121(5):e1074–e1084. [PubMed: 18450850]
• Lam N, Leat SJ. Reprint of: Barriers to accessing low-vision care: The patient’s perspective. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015;50(Suppl 1):S34–S39. [PubMed: 26049889]
• Lancaster K, Hughes CE, Spicer B, Matthew-Simmons F, Dillon P. Illicit drugs and the media: Models of media effects for use in drug policy research. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2011;30(4):397–402. [PubMed: 21355898]
• Lang D, Leman R, Arnold AW, Arnold RW. Validated portable pediatric vision screening in the Alaska bush. A VIPS-like study in the Koyukon. Alaska Medicine. 2007;49(1):2–15. [PubMed: 17479731]
• Leahy E, Fallon M. Boards of health: Extinction or evolution? Transformations in Public Health. 2005;6(3):1–4.
• Lechanteur YT, van de Camp PL, Smailhodzic D, van de Ven JP, Buitendijk GH, Klaver CC, Groenewoud JM, den Hollander AI, Hoyng CB, Klevering BJ. Association of smoking and CFH and ARMS2 risk variants with younger age at onset of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2015;133(5):533–541. [PubMed: 25695752]
• Lee S, Song SJ, Yu HG. Current smoking is associated with a poor visual acuity improvement after intravitreal ranibizumab therapy in patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2013a;28(5):769–774. [PMC free article: PMC3653092] [PubMed: 23678271]
• Lee SM, Landry J, Jones PM, Buhrmann O, Morley-Forster P. The effectiveness of a perioperative smoking cessation program: A randomized clinical trial. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2013b;117(3):605–613. [PubMed: 23868890]
• Lefebvre RC, Bornkessel AS. Digital social networks and health. Circulation. 2013;127(17):1829–1836. [PubMed: 23630086]
• Liang XY, Chen LJ, Ng TK, Tuo J, Gao JL, Tam PO, Lai TY, Chan CC, Pang CP. FPR1 interacts with CFH, HTRA1 and smoking in exudative age-related macular degeneration and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy. Eye (London). 2014;28(12):1502–1510. [PMC free article: PMC4268466] [PubMed: 25277308]
• Libbey P, Miyahara B. Cross-jurisdictional relationship in local public health: Preliminary summary of an environmental scan. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2011.
• Lin PR, Zhao ZW, Cheng KK, Lam TH. The effect of physician’s 30 s smoking cessation intervention for male medical outpatients: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Public Health (Oxford). 2013;35(3):375–383. [PubMed: 23487178]
• Lindblad BE, Håkansson N, Svensson H, Philipson B, Wolk A. Intensity of smoking and smoking cessation in relation to risk of cataract extraction: A prospective study of women. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2005;162(1):73–79. [PubMed: 15961589]
• Lindblad BE, Håkansson N, Wolk A. Smoking cessation and the risk of cataract: A prospective cohort study of cataract extraction among men. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2014;132(3):253–257. [PubMed: 24385206]
• Lions Club. Lions eye health program. 2016. [July 10, 2016]. http://members​.lionsclubs​.org/EN/serve/sight/eye-health.
• Livingston PM, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. Knowledge, attitudes, and self care practices associated with age related eye disease in Australia. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 1998;82(7):780–785. [PMC free article: PMC1722649] [PubMed: 9924371]
• Lombardi DA, Verma SK, Brennan MJ, Perry MJ. Factors influencing worker use of personal protective eyewear. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2009;41(4):755–762. [PubMed: 19540964]
• Loo DL, Ng DH, Tang W, Au Eong KG. Raising awareness of blindness as another smoking-related condition: A public health role for optometrists? Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2009;92(1):42–44. [PubMed: 19125746]
• Lopez W, Frieden TR. Law in public health practice. Goodman RA, Hoffman RE, Lopez W, Matthews GW, Rothstein MA, Foster KL, editors. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. (Legal counsel to public health practitioners).
• Mancini G, Baldasseroni A, Laffi G, Curti S, Mattioli S, Violante FS. Prevention of work related eye injuries: Long term assessment of the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention among metal workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2005;62(12):830–835. [PMC free article: PMC1740928] [PubMed: 16299090]
• Marshall EC, Meetz RE, Harmon LL. Through our children’s eyes—The public health impact of the vision screening requirements for Indiana school children. Optometry. 2010;81(2):71–82. [PubMed: 20152780]
• Matter KC, Sinclair SA, Xiang H. Use of protective eyewear in U.S. children: Results from the National Health Interview Survey. Ophthalmic Epidemiology. 2007;14(1):37–43. [PubMed: 17365816]
• Mays GP, McHugh MC, Shim K, Perry N, Lenaway D, Halverson PK, Moonesinghe R. Institutional and economic determinants of public health system performance. American Journal of Public Health. 2006;96(3):523–531. [PMC free article: PMC1470518] [PubMed: 16449584]
• McCombs M, Shaw D. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1972;36(2):176–187.
• McGwin G, Khoury R, Cross J, Owsley C. Vision impairment and eye care utilization among Americans 50 and older. Current Eye Research. 2010;35(6):451–458. [PMC free article: PMC3592495] [PubMed: 20465437]
• McNaughton CD, Cawthon C, Kripalani S, Liu D, Storrow AB, Roumie CL. Health literacy and mortality: A cohort study of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2015;4(5) [PMC free article: PMC4599411] [PubMed: 25926328]
• MDHHS (Michigan Department of Health and Human Services). Vision screening. 2016a. [May 18, 2016]. http://www​.michigan.gov​/mdhhs/0,5885,7–339-73971​_4911​_4912_6238_76134---,00.html.
• MDHHS (Michigan Department of Health and Human Services). Vision screening and reporting for kindergarten. 2016b. [May 18, 2016]. https://www​.mcir.org​/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/SS_Vision.pdf.
• Medicaid. Benefits. 2016a. [October 20, 2015]. https://www​.medicaid​.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information​/by-topics​/benefits/medicaid-benefits.html.
• Medicaid. 2016b. Eligibility. 2016a. [October 20, 2015]. https://www​.medicaid​.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information​/bytopics​/eligibility/eligibility.html.
• Mello MM, Pomeranz J, Moran P. The interplay of public health law and industry self-regulation: The case of sugar-sweetened bevarage sales in schools. American Journal of Public Health. 2008;98(4):595–604. [PMC free article: PMC2376983] [PubMed: 17901427]
• Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: Systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013;15(4):e85. [PMC free article: PMC3636326] [PubMed: 23615206]
• Muir KW, Santiago-Turla C, Stinnett SS, Herndon LW, Allingham RR, Challa P, Lee PP. Health literacy and adherence to glaucoma therapy. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006;142(2):223–226. [PubMed: 16876500]
• Muir KW, Christensen L, Bosworth HB. Health literacy and glaucoma. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. 2013;24(2):119–124. [PubMed: 23241740]
• Müller A, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Changes in eye care utilization following an eye health promotion campaign. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2007;35(4):305–309. [PubMed: 17539780]
• Mussener U, Bendtsen M, Karlsson N, White IR, McCambridge J, Bendtsen P. Effectiveness of short message service text-based smoking cessation intervention among university students: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2016;176(3):321–328. [PMC free article: PMC5854248] [PubMed: 26903176]
• Myers CE, Klein BEK, Gangnon R, Sivakumaran TA, Iyengar SK, Klein R. Cigarette smoking and the natural history of age-related macular degeneration: The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(10):1949–1955. [PMC free article: PMC4177947] [PubMed: 24953792]
• NACCHO (National Association of County and City Health Officials). NACCHO survey examines state/local health department relationships. Washington, DC: NACCHO; 1998.
• NACCHO (National Association of County and City Health Officials). 2008 national profile of local health departments. Washington, DC: NACCHO; 2009a.
• NACCHO (National Association of County and City Health Officials). The local health department workforce: Findings from the 2008 national profile of local health departments. Washington, DC: NACCHO; 2009b.
• NACCHO (National Association of County and City Health Officials). Local health department job losses and program cuts: Findings from January 2011 survey and 2010 national profile study. Washington, DC: NACCHO; 2011.
• NACCHO (National Association of County and City Health Officials). Tip sheet: Prioritizing issues in a community health improvement process. Washington, DC: NACCHO; 2016. [August 15, 2015]. http://archived​.naccho​.org/topics/infrastructure​/CHAIP/upload​/Final-Issue-Prioritization-Resource-Sheet.pdf.
• NACDD (National Association of Chronic Disease Directors). Vision problems in the United States: Recommendations for a state public health response. Chicago, IL: Prevent Blindness; 2004.
• NACCHO (National Association of County and City Health Officials). Vision and eye health initiative funding opportunity announcement (FOA #VIi2015a). 2016. [November 29, 2016]. http://c​.ymcdn.com/sites/www​.chronicdisease​.org/resource/resmgr​/Healthy_Aging/RFA​_for_Vision_and_Eye_Healt.pdf.
• NACCHO (National Association of County and City Health Officials). About NACDD. [April 5, 2016]. n.d. http://www​.chronicdisease​.org/?page=AboutUs.
• Naron S, Mendes M. Baltimore City announces new citywide initiative to provide free universal vision screening and glasses to students. Baltimore, MD: City of Baltimore; 2016.
• NASEM (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). Hearing health care for adults: Priorities for improving access and affordability. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016. [PubMed: 27280276]
• National Center for Appropriate Technology. Partnership for sustainable communities: Five years of learning from communities and coordinating federal investments. 2014. [July 22, 2016]. https://www​.sustainablecommunities​.gov/sites​/sustainablecommunities​.gov/files/docs​/partnership-accomplishments-report-2014-reduced-size.pdf.
• The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. 7 keys to success. 2016. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.ncppp.org/ppp-basics/7-keys.
• NEHEP (National Eye Health Education Program). National Eye Health Education Progam five-year agenda 2012–2017. Bethesda, MD: National Eye Institute; 2011.
• NEHEP (National Eye Health Education Program). Diabetes focus group findings. Bethesda, MD: National Eye Institute; 2014.
• NEHEP (National Eye Health Education Program). Glaucoma awareness month. [July 10, 2016]. n.d. https://nei​.nih.gov/nehep/gam.
• NEI/LCIF (National Eye Institute/Lions Club International Foundation). 2005 survey of public knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to eye health and disease. 2008. [April 6, 2016]. https://nei​.nih.gov/sites​/default/files/nei-pdfs​/2005KAPFinalRpt.pdf.
• NEI/NIH (National Eye Institute/National Institutes of Health). Eye health tips. 2015a. [April 6, 2016]. https://nei​.nih.gov/healthyeyes​/eyehealthtips.
• NEI/NIH (National Eye Institute/National Institutes of Health). Finding the right eye protection. 2015b. [September 23, 2015]. https://nei​.nih.gov/sports​/findingprotection.
• NEI/NIH (National Eye Institute/National Institutes of Health). National Eye Health Education Program (NEHEP). 2015c. [June 12, 2016]. https://nei​.nih.gov/nehep/about.
• NEI/NIH (National Eye Institute/National Institutes of Health). NEI’s research progress. 2015d. [April 6, 2016]. https://nei​.nih.gov/about/mission.
• NEI/NIH (National Eye Institute/National Institutes of Health). Budget and Congress. 2016. [April 7, 2016]. https://nei​.nih.gov/news/congress.
• Neiger BL, Thackeray R, Burton SH, Giraud-Carrier CG, Fagen MC. Evaluating social media’s capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: Use of Twitter metrics as a case study. Health Promotion Practice. 2012;14(2):157–162. [PubMed: 23271716]
• Neuner B, Komm A, Wellmann J, Dietzel M, Pauleikhoff D, Walter J, Busch M, Hense HW. Smoking history and the incidence of age-related macular degeneration—results from the Muenster Aging and Retina Study (MARS) cohort and systematic review and meta-analysis of observational longitudinal studies. Addictive Behaviors. 2009;34(11):938–947. [PubMed: 19539431]
• New Eyes. U.S. voucher program. [July 11, 2016]. n.d. http://www​.new-eyes.org​/us-voucher-program-1.
• NIBS (National Institute of Building Sciences). Design guidelines for the visual environment. Washington, DC: NIBS; 2015.
• Nicola RM. Boards of health give citizens a voice. Transformations in Public Health. 2005;5(3):2–7.
• Niederdeppe J, Farrelly MC, Haviland ML. Confirming “truth”: More evidence of a successful tobacco countermarketing campaign in Florida. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94(2):255–257. [PMC free article: PMC1448237] [PubMed: 14759936]
• Nishtar S. Public–private “partnerships” in health—A global call to action. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2004;2:5–5. [PMC free article: PMC514532] [PubMed: 15282025]
• Noertjojo K, Maberley D, Bassett K, Courtright P. Awareness of eye diseases and risk factors: Identifying needs for health education and promotion in Canada. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006;41(5):617–623. [PubMed: 17016537]
• Novick LF, Mays GP, Benjamin G. Public health administration: Principles for population-based management. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2005.
• NRC (National Research Council). Improving health in the United States: The role of health impact assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. [PubMed: 22379655]
• NYSDOH (New York State Department of Health). Graphic ad campaign warns smokers of stroke and eye damage from cigarettes: TV, radio, internet ads promote free NYS quitline services to kick addiction. Albany: NYSDOH; 2009.
• ODPHP (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). Health communication and social marketing: Health communication campaigns that include mass media and health-related product distribution (community guide recommendation). 2010. [April 6, 2016]. https://www​.healthypeople​.gov/2020/tools-resources​/evidence-based-resource​/health-communication-and-social-marketing-health-0.
• ODPHP (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). Health literate care model. 2016a. [June 1, 2016]. http://health​.gov/communication​/interactiveHLCM/resources​.asp.
• ODPHP (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). Immunization and infectious diseases. 2016b. [April 6, 2016]. https://www​.healthypeople​.gov/2020/topics-objectives​/topic/immunization-and-infectious-diseases​/objectives.
• ODPHP (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). Social determinants of health. 2016c. [April 13, 2016]. https://www​.healthypeople​.gov/2020/topicsobjectives​/topic/social-determinants-of-health.
• ODPHP (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). Social determinants of health: Objectives. 2016d. [April 13, 2016]. https://www​.healthypeople​.gov/2020/topics-objectives​/topic/social-determinants-of-health/objectives.
• ODPHP (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). Vision. 2016e. [April 6, 2016]. https://www​.healthypeople​.gov/2020/topics-objectives​/topic/vision/objectives.
• ODPHP (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). Vision interventions & resources. 2016f. [April 6, 2016]. https://www​.healthypeople​.gov/2020/topicsobjectives​/topic/vision/ebrs.
• Omana-Cepeda C, Jane-Salas E, Estrugo-Devesa A, Chimenos-Kustner E, Lopez-Lopez J. Effectiveness of dentist’s intervention in smoking cessation: A review. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry. 2016;8(1):e78–e83. [PMC free article: PMC4739373] [PubMed: 26855711]
• OneSight. FAQs. 2016. [July 11, 2016]. https://onesight​.org/faqs.
• Opstelten W, Zaal MJW. Managing ophthalmic herpes zoster in primary care. British Medical Journal. 2005;331(7509):147–151. [PMC free article: PMC558704] [PubMed: 16020856]
• OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Eye and face protection. 2003. [April 6, 2016]. https://www​.osha.gov​/Publications/osha3151.html#eyeandface.
• OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Regulations (Standards—29 CFR): Table of contents. 2009. [April 6, 2016]. https://www​.osha.gov​/pls/oshaweb/owadisp​.show_document?p_table​=STANDARDS&p_id=9778.
• OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Eye and face protection eTool. 2016. [April 6, 2016]. https://www​.osha.gov​/SLTC/etools/eyeandface​/employer/requirements.html.
• Oto MA, Ergene O, Tokgozoglu L, Ongen Z, Kozan O, Sahin M, Erol MK, Tezel T, Ozkan M. Impact of a mass media campaign to increase public awareness of hypertension. Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi Ars. 2011;39(5):355–364. [PubMed: 21743258]
• Papadakis S, McDonald PW, Pipe AL, Letherdale ST, Reid RD, Brown KS. Effectiveness of telephone-based follow-up support delivered in combination with a multi-component smoking cessation intervention in family practice: A cluster-randomized trial. Preventive Medicine. 2013;56(6):390–397. [PubMed: 23480968]
• Parssinen O, Kauppinen M, Viljanen A. The progression of myopia from its onset at age 8–12 to adulthood and the influence of heredity and external factors on myopic progression: A 23-year follow-up study. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2014;92(8):730–739. [PubMed: 24674576]
• Paul S, Liu Y. Inadequate light levels and their effect on falls and daily activities of community dwelling older adults: A review of literature. New Zealand Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2012;59(2):39–42.
• PBA/NACDD (Prevent Blindness America/National Association of Chronic Disease Directors). A plan for the development of state based vision preservation programs: Summary of a retreat on public health vision preservation. Rensselaerville, NY: National Association of Chronic Disease Directors; 2005.
• Pedersen ER, Eberhart NK, Williams KM, Tanielian T, Epley C, Scharf DM. Public–private partnerships for providing behavioral health care to veterans and their families: What do we know, what do we need to learn, and what do we need to do? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2015. [PMC free article: PMC5158298] [PubMed: 28083394]
• Perdue WC, Stone LA, Gostin LO. The built environment and its relationship to the public’s health: The legal framework. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(9):1390–1394. [PMC free article: PMC1447979] [PubMed: 12948949]
• PHAB (Public Health Accreditation Board). Getting started. 2013. [April 11, 2016]. http://www​.phaboard.org​/accreditation-overview​/getting-started.
• PHAB (Public Health Accreditation Board). What is public health accreditation. [July 15, 2016]. n.d. http://www​.phaboard.org​/accreditationoverview​/what-is-accreditation.
• Phildelphia Eagles. Eagles charitable foundation: Vision care. 2016. [July 11, 2016]. http://www​.philadelphiaeagles​.com/community/org-vision.html.
• Prevent Blindness. The vision connection: Integrating vision into state health programs. Chicago, IL: Prevent Blindness America; 2012.
• Prevent Blindness. Eye safety at work. 2016a. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.preventblindness​.org/eye-safety-work.
• Prevent Blindness. Prevent Blindness eye health and safety observance calendar. 2016b. [July 10, 2016]. http://www​.preventblindness​.org/prevent-blindness-eye-health-and-safety-observance-calendar.
• Prevent Blindness. Preventing eye injuries. 2016c. [April 6, 2016]. http://www​.preventblindness​.org/preventing-eyeinjuries.
• Radford CF, Minassian D, Dart JK, Stapleton F, Verma S. Risk factors for nonulcerative contact lens complications in an ophthalmic accident and emergency department: A case-control study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(3):385–392. [PubMed: 19167088]
• Rahi JS, Cumberland PM, Peckham CS. Visual function in working-age adults: Early life influences and associations with health and social outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(10):1866–1871. [PubMed: 19560208]
• Ramirez LB, Baker E, Metzler M. Promoting health equity: A resource to help communities address social determinants of health. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2008.
• Ranasinghe P, Wathurapatha WS, Perera YS, Lamabadusuriya DA, Kulatunga S, Jayawardana N, Katulanda P. Computer vision syndrome among computer office workers in a developing country: An evaluation of prevalence and risk factors. BMC Research Notes. 2016;9(1):150. [PMC free article: PMC4784392] [PubMed: 26956624]
• Rao G. The Barrie Jones lecture—Eye care for the neglected population: Challenges and solutions. Eye. 2015;29(1):30–45. [PMC free article: PMC4289831] [PubMed: 25567375]
• Rein DB. Vision problems are a leading source of modifiable health expenditures. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2013;54(14):ORSF18–ORSF22. [PubMed: 24335062]
• Rey-Lopez JP, Vicente-Rodriguez G, Biosca M, Moreno LA. Sedentary behaviour and obesity development in children and adolescents. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases. 2008;18(3):242–251. [PubMed: 18083016]
• Reynaers AM. Public values in public–private partnerships. Public Administration Review. 2014;74(1):41–50.
• Robertson DM, Cavanagh HD. Non-compliance with contact lens wear and care practices: A comparative analysis. Optometry & Vision Science. 2011;88(12):1402–1408. [PMC free article: PMC3223553] [PubMed: 21946785]
• Rose KA, Morgan IG, Ip J, Kifley A, Huynh S, Smith W, Mitchell P. Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(8):1279–1285. [PubMed: 18294691]
• Rosenfield M. Computer vision syndrome: A review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic and Physiologic Optics. 2011;31(5):502–515. [PubMed: 21480937]
• Rubin DB, Singh SR, Young GJ. Tax-exempt hospitals and community benefit: New directions in policy and practice. Annual Review of Public Health. 2015;36(1):545–557. [PubMed: 25785895]
• RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). Building a culture of health. Princeton, NJ: RWJF; 2014.
• Salinsky E. Governmental public health: An overview of state and local public health agencies. Washington, DC: National Health Policy Forum; 2010.
• Sarna LP, Bialous SA, Kralikova E, Kmetova A, Felbrova V, Kulovana S, Mala K, Roubickova E, Wells MJ, Brook JK. Impact of a smoking cessation educational program on nurses’ interventions. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2014;46(5):314–321. [PubMed: 24758571]
• SATH (Society for Accessible Travel & Hospitality). How to travel with a sight impairment or blindness. 2013. [April 7, 2016]. http://sath​.org/how-to-travel-with-a-sight-impairment-or-blindness.
• Sawyer J, Kaup ML. Lighting, vision, and aging in place: The impact of living with low vision in independent living facilities. Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences. 2014;13
• Schaumberg DA, Hankinson SE, Guo Q, Rimm E, Hunter DJ. A prospective study of 2 major age-related macular degeneration susceptibility alleles and interactions with modifiable risk factors. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2007;125(1):55–62. [PubMed: 17210852]
• Schmidt S, Hauser MA, Scott WK, Postel EA, Agarwal A, Gallins P, Wong F, Chen YS, Spencer K, Schnetz-Boutaud N, Haines JL, Pericak-Vance MA. Cigarette smoking strongly modifies the association of LOC387715 and age-related macular degeneration. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2006;78(5):852–864. [PMC free article: PMC1474047] [PubMed: 16642439]
• Scott AW, Bressler NM, Ffolkes S, Wittenborn JS, Jorkavsky J. Public attitudes about eye and vision health. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2016;134(10):1111–1118. [PubMed: 27490785]
• Sengupta S, Nguyen AM, van Landingham SW, Solomon SD, Do DV, Ferrucci L, Friedman DS, Ramulu PY. Evaluation of real-world mobility in age-related macular degeneration. BMC Ophthalmology. 2015;15(1):1–11. [PMC free article: PMC4328075] [PubMed: 25636376]
• Sentell T, Braun KL, Davis J, Davis T. Health literacy and meeting breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines among Asians and Whites in California. SpringerPlus. 2015;4:432. [PMC free article: PMC4540711] [PubMed: 26306294]
• Shah A, Blackhall K, Ker K, Patel D. Educational interventions for the prevention of eye injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009;(4):Cd006527. [PMC free article: PMC7388744] [PubMed: 19821372]
• Sheedy JE, Hayes JN, Engle J. Is all asthenopia the same? Optometry & Vision Science. 2003;80(11):732–739. [PubMed: 14627938]
• Sheppler CR, Lambert WE, Gardiner SK, Becker TM, Mansberger SL. Predicting adherence to diabetic eye examinations: Development of the compliance with annual diabetic eye exams survey. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(6):1212–1219. [PMC free article: PMC5999020] [PubMed: 24518614]
• Shih ST, Carter R, Sinclair C, Mihalopoulos C, Vos T. Economic evaluation of skin cancer prevention in Australia. Preventive Medicine. 2009;49(5):449–453. [PubMed: 19747936]
• Shin P, Finnegan B. George Washington University Center for Health Services Research and Policy. 2009. pp. 1–23. (Assessing the need for on-site eye care professionals in community health centers). [PubMed: 19768853]
• Simpson SA, Nonnemaker JM. New York tobacco control program cessation assistance: Costs, benefits, and effectiveness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013;10(3):1037–1047. [PMC free article: PMC3709302] [PubMed: 23485952]
• Singh S, Satani D, Patel A, Vhankade R. Colored cosmetic contact lenses: An unsafe trend in the younger generation. Cornea. 2012;31(7):777–779. [PubMed: 22378117]
• Sliney DH. Photoprotection of the eye—UV radiation and sunglasses. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology. 2001;B 64(2–3):166–175. [PubMed: 11744403]
• Sloan FA, Picone G, Brown DS, Lee PP. Longitudinal analysis of the relationship between regular eye examinations and changes in visual and functional status. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2005;53(11):1867–1874. [PubMed: 16274366]
• Slonim AB, Callaghan C, Daily L, Leonard BA, Wheeler FC, Gollmar CW, Young WF. Recommendations for integration of chronic disease programs: Are your programs linked? Preventing Chronic Disease. 2007;4(2):A34. [PMC free article: PMC1893132] [PubMed: 17362625]
• Smith KE, Bambra C, Joyce KE, Perkins N, Hunter DJ, Blenkinsopp EA. Partners in health? A systematic review of the impact of organizational partnerships on public health outcomes in England between 1997 and 2008. Journal of Public Health. 2009;31(2):210–221. [PubMed: 19182048]
• Spellman FR, Bieber RM. Environmental health and science desk reference. Lanham, MD: Government Institutes; 2012.
• Spinweber E, Honeysett A. Partnership for a healthier America and Channel One News to bring healthy messages into the classroom. Washington, DC: Channel One News; 2013.
• Stanczyk NE, Smit ES, Schulz DN, de Vries H, Bolman C, Muris JW, Evers SM. An economic evaluation of a video- and text-based computer-tailored intervention for smoking cessation: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e110117. [PMC free article: PMC4195710] [PubMed: 25310007]
• Stapleton F, Keay L, Edwards K, Naduvilath T, Dart JK, Brian G, Holden BA. The incidence of contact lens–related microbial keratitis in australia. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(10):1655–1662. [PubMed: 18538404]
• Stapleton F, Edwards K, Keay L, Naduvilath T, Dart JK, Brian G, Holden B. Risk factors for moderate and severe microbial keratitis in daily wear contact lens users. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(8):1516–1521. [PubMed: 22521083]
• State of Michigan. Michigan’s public health hearing & vision screening programs: Information for healthcare providers. 2016. [June 10, 2016]. https://www​.michigan​.gov/documents/mdch/physicans​_flyer_361187_7.pdf.
• Steinemann TL, Fletcher M, Bonny AE, Harvey RA, Hamlin D, Zloty P, Besson M, Walter K, Gagnon M. Over-the-counter decorative contact lenses: Cosmetic or medical devices? A case series. Eye & Contact Lens. 2005;31(5):194–200. [PubMed: 16163010]
• Stoto MA, Morse L. Regionalization in local public health systems: Public health preparedness in the Washington Metropolitan area. Public Health Reports. 2008;123(4):461–473. [PMC free article: PMC2430642] [PubMed: 18763408]
• Sundling V, Gulbrandsen P, Jervell J, Straand J. Care of vision and ocular health in diabetic members of a national diabetes organization: A cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research. 2008;8(1):1–8. [PMC free article: PMC2525638] [PubMed: 18655733]
• Szczotka-Flynn LB, Pearlman E, Ghannoum M. Microbial contamination of contact lenses, lens care solutions, and their accessories: A literature review. Eye & Contact Lens. 2010;36(2):116–129. [PMC free article: PMC3482476] [PubMed: 20168237]
• Tarczy-Hornoch K, Cotter SA, Borchert M, McKean-Cowdin R, Lin J, Wen G, Kim J, Varma R. Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in Asian and non-Hispanic white preschool children: Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(6):1220–1226. [PMC free article: PMC4848010] [PubMed: 23561327]
• TDI (Texas Department of Insurance). Eye injury prevention factsheet. Austin: TDI; 2007.
• Thornton J, Edwards R, Mitchell P, Harrison RA, Buchan I, Kelly SP. Smoking and age-related macular degeneration: A review of association. Eye (London). 2005;19(9):935–944. [PubMed: 16151432]
• Toufeeq A, Oram AJ. School-entry vision screening in the United Kingdom: Practical aspects and outcomes. Ophthalmic Epidemiology. 2014;21(4):210–216. [PubMed: 24742060]
• Tovar-Aguilar JA, Monaghan PF, Bryant CA, Esposito A, Wade M, Ruiz O, McDermott RJ. Improving eye safety in citrus harvest crews through the acceptance of personal protective equipment, community-based participatory research, social marketing, and community health workers. Journal of Agromedicine. 2014;19(2):107–116. [PubMed: 24911686]
• U.S. Surgeon General. The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: A report from the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.
• U.S. Surgeon General. Active living. 2016. [August 4, 2016]. http://www​.surgeongeneral​.gov/priorities​/prevention/strategy/active-living.html.
• Varano M, Eter N, Winyard S, Wittrup-Jensen KU, Navarro R, Heraghty J. Current barriers to treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration (WAMD): Findings from the WAMD patient and caregiver survey. Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology. 2015;9:2243–2250. [PMC free article: PMC4671808] [PubMed: 26664038]
• Verma A, Schulz MR, Quandt SA, Robinson EN, Grzywacz JG, Chen H, Arcury TA. Eye health and safety among Latino farmworkers. Journal of Agromedicine. 2011;16(2):143–152. [PMC free article: PMC3071598] [PubMed: 21462026]
• VHIPP (Vision Health Integration and Preservation Program). Centers for Disease Control & Prevention component 2a: Vision integration. Albany, NY: VHIPP; 2012.
• Vision To Learn. Annual report 2015. Los Angeles, CA: Vision To Learn; 2016.
• Vitale S, Ellwein L, Cotch MF, Ferris FL 3rd, Sperduto R. Prevalence of refractive error in the United States, 1999–2004. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2008;126(8):1111–1119. [PMC free article: PMC2772054] [PubMed: 18695106]
• Vrangbaek K. Public–private partnerships in the health sector: The Danish experience. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2008;3(02):141–163. [PubMed: 18634625]
• VSP (Vision Service Plan). Gift certificates. 2016. [July 11, 2016]. https://vspglobal​.com​/cms/vspglobal-outreach​/gift-certificates.html.
• VSP (Vision Service Plan). Become a partner. [August 31, 2106]. n.d. https://vspglobal​.com​/cms/vspglobal-outreach​/giftcertificatesnationalpartner​.html.
• Walker EA, Schechter CB, Caban A, Basch CE. Telephone intervention to promote diabetic retinopathy screening among the urban poor. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008;34(3):185–191. [PMC free article: PMC2272534] [PubMed: 18312805]
• Weintraub JM, Willett WC, Rosner B, Colditz GA, Seddon JM, Hankinson SE. Smoking cessation and risk of cataract extraction among US women and men. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002;155(1):72–79. [PubMed: 11772787]
• Weiss DM, Casten RJ, Leiby BE, Hark LA, Murchison AP, Johnson D, Stratford S, Henderer J, Rovner BW, Haller JA. Effect of behavioral intervention on dilated fundus examination rates in older African American individuals with diabetes mellitus: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2015;133(9):1005–1012. [PubMed: 26068230]
• Wernham A, Teutsch SM. Health in all policies for big cities. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2015;21(Suppl 1):S56–S65. [PMC free article: PMC4243805] [PubMed: 25423058]
• The White House. First Lady Michelle Obama launches Let’s Move: America’s move to raise a healthier generation of kids. Washington, DC: The White House, Office of the First Lady; 2010.
• White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. Solving the problem of childhood obesity within a generation. Washington, DC: The White House; 2010. [PubMed: 20942695]
• Whitson HE, Lin FR. Hearing and vision care for older adults: Sensing a need to update Medicare policy. JAMA. 2014;312(17):1739–1740. [PMC free article: PMC4260264] [PubMed: 25369486]
• Whitson HE, Cousins SW, Burchett BM, Hybels CF, Pieper CF, Cohen HJ. The combined effect of visual impairment and cognitive impairment on disability in older people. Journal of the American Geriatric Society. 2007;55(6):885–891. [PubMed: 17537089]
• WHO (World Health Organization). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States. Official Records of the World Health Organization. 1948;2:100.
• WHO (World Health Organization). Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2005–2008. [August 14, 2016]. n.d.a. http://www​.who.int/social_determinants​/thecommission/en.
• WHO (World Health Organization). Health promotion. [August 14, 2016]. n.d.b. http://www​.who.int/topics​/health_promotion/en.
• Wittenborn J, Rein D. The potential costs and benefits of treatment for undiagnosed eye disorders. 2016. [September 15, 2016]. (Paper prepared for the Committee on Public Health Approaches to Reduce Vision Impairment and Promote Eye Health). http://www​.nationalacademies​.org/hmd/~/media​/Files/Report%20Files​/2016/UndiagnosedEyeDisordersCommissionedPaper.pdf.
• Wood JM, Chaparro A, Lacherez P, Hickson L. Useful field of view predicts driving in the presence of distracters. Optometry & Vision Science. 2012;89(4):373–381. [PubMed: 22366710]
• Wright CY, Reeder AI, Bodeker GE, Gray A, Cox B. Solar UVR exposure, concurrent activities and sun-protective practices among primary schoolchildren. Photochemistry and Photobiology. 2007;83(3):749–758. [PubMed: 17576384]
• Wu Y, Tian L, Huang Y. Correlation between the interactions of ABCA4 polymorphisms and smoking with the susceptibility to age-related macular degeneration. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology. 2015a;8(6):7403–7408. [PMC free article: PMC4525977] [PubMed: 26261643]
• Wu YT, Willcox M, Zhu H, Stapleton F. Contact lens hygiene compliance and lens case contamination: A review. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2015b;38(5):307–316. [PubMed: 25980811]
• Yazar S, Hewitt AW, Black LJ, McKnight CM, Mountain JA, Sherwin JC, Oddy WH, Coroneo MT, Lucas RM, Mackey DA. Myopia is associated with lower vitamin D status in young adults’ myopia and vitamin D status. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2014;55(7):4552–4559. [PubMed: 24970253]
• Yildiz EH, Airiani S, Hammersmith KM, Rapuano CJ, Laibson PR, Virdi AS, Hongyok T, Cohen EJ. Trends in contact lens–related corneal ulcers at a tertiary referral center. Cornea. 2012;31(10):1097–1102. [PubMed: 22902490]
• Zambelli-Weiner A, Crews JE, Friedman DS. Disparities in adult vision health in the United States. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2012;154(6 Suppl):S23–S30. e21. [PubMed: 22633355]
• Zhang X, Kahende J, Fan AZ, Barker L, Thompson TJ, Mokdad AH, Li Y, Saaddine JB. Smoking and visual impairment among older adults with age-related eye diseases. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2011;8(4):A84. [PMC free article: PMC3136979] [PubMed: 21672408]
• Zhang X, Cotch MF, Ryskulova A, Primo SA, Nair P, Chou CF, Geiss LS, Barker L, Elliott AF, Crews JE, Saaddine JB. Vision health disparities in the United States by race/ethnicity, education, and economic status: Findings from two nationally representative surveys. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2012;154(60):S53–S62. e51. [PMC free article: PMC4169111] [PubMed: 23158224]
• Zhou J, Ma YH, Ma J, Zou ZY, Meng XK, Tao FB, Luo CY, Jing J, Pan DH, Luo JY, Zhang X, Wang H, Zhao HP. Prevalence of myopia and influencing factors among primary and middle school students in 6 provinces of China. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2016;37(1):29–34. [PubMed: 26822639]
• Zohar Z, Waksman I, Stolero J, Volpin G, Sacagiu E, Eytan A. Injury from fireworks and firecrackers during holidays. Harefuah. 2004;143(10):698–701. 768. [PubMed: 15521342]
• Zuckerman DM. Blind adults in America: Their lives and challenges. Washington, DC: National Research Center for Women & Families; 2004.