SOCIOECONOMIC BURDEN OF OPHTHALMIC INJURIES: METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS IN THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2786-7684/2026-1-11Keywords:
ophthalmic injuries, economic burden, direct costs, indirect costs, disability, healthcare system, assessment methodologyAbstract
Introduction. Traumatic eye injuries represent a significant medical and social problem due to the high risk of disability among the working-age population and substantial economic losses for society. More than 55 million eye injury cases of varying severity are registered worldwide annually. Assessment of the economic burden of traumatic eye injuries requires a comprehensive approach accounting not only for the direct medical costs of treatment but also for the indirect costs associated with loss of working capacity, decreased quality of life, and social adaptation of victims. Purpose: to develop a methodology for a comprehensive assessment of the socioeconomic burden of ophthalmic injuries with the determination of direct and indirect costs in the Ukrainian healthcare system. Methods: systematic literature analysis for 2015-2024 conducted, international methodological approaches to economic burden of disease assessment studied, statistical data from the Center for Medical Statistics of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine and the Ministry of Internal Affairs analyzed for 2020-2023. Economic analysis, modeling, and expert assessment methods are used. Results: established that approximately 45-50 thousand ophthalmic injury cases are registered annually in Ukraine, 18-22% leading to persistent vision loss or blindness. A methodological approach to calculating the economic burden has been developed, encompassing direct medical costs (outpatient and inpatient treatment, medications, rehabilitation), direct non-medical costs (transportation, care, social support), and indirect costs (productivity loss, premature mortality, reduction in quality of life). Preliminary calculations show the total economic burden of ophthalmic injuries in Ukraine exceeds 2.5 billion UAH annually. Conclusions: The proposed methodology enables a comprehensive assessment of the socioeconomic burden of ophthalmic injuries and justification of investments in prevention programs. Implementation of an economic monitoring system for ophthalmic injuries will facilitate the optimization of vision care resource allocation and reduce society’s economic losses.
References
Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study; GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators. Global estimates on the number of people blind or visually impaired by cataract: a meta-analysis from 2000 to 2020. Eye (Lond). 2024 Aug;38(11):2156-2172. doi: 10.1038/s41433-024-02961-1. Erratum in: Eye (Lond). 2024 Aug;38(11):2229-2231. doi: 10.1038/s41433-024-03161-7. PMID: 38461217; PMCID: PMC11269584.
Miller SC, Fliotsos MJ, Justin GA, Yonekawa Y, Chen A, Hoskin AK, et al. Global current practice patterns for the management of open globe injuries. Am J Ophthalmol. 2022;234:259-73. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.08.003.
Lu S, Li H, Yang X, Ma C, Li X. Epidemiology of ocular trauma and predictive modeling of visual outcomes: a 12-year retrospective study at a tertiary hospital in China. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2025;18:691-702. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S505657
Vought V, Zarbin F, Vought R, Khouri AS. Patterns and prevention of occupational eye injuries: a narrative review. Clin Ophthalmol. 2025;19:4257-68. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S556838.
Park H-Y, Ryu H, Kang H-Y, Lee H, Kwon J-W. Clinical and Economic Burden of Visual Impairment in an Aging Society of South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2015;27(6):631-642. doi:10.1177/1010539515588944
Frick KD, Gower EW, Kempen JH, Wolff JL. Economic impact of visual impairment and blindness in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(4):544-50. doi: 10.1001/archopht.125.4.544.
McGwin G, Owsley C. Incidence of emergency department-treated eye injury in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(5):662-6. doi: 10.1001/archopht.123.5.662
Sahraravand A, Haavisto AK, Holopainen JM, Leivo T. Ocular traumas in working age adults in Finland – Helsinki Ocular Trauma Study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(3):288-94. doi: 10.1111/aos.13309
Kuhn F, Morris R, Witherspoon CD, Mester V. The Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology system (BETT). J Fr Ophtalmol. 2004;27(2):206-10. doi: 10.1016/s0181-5512(04)96122-0.
World Health Organization. Eye care in health systems: guide for action. Geneva: WHO; 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240050068
Lipscomb HJ. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent work-related eye injuries. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(4):27-32. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00138-0
Blanch RJ, McMaster D, Patterson TJ. Management of open globe injury: a narrative review. Eye. 2024;38(16):3047-51. doi: 10.1038/s41433-024-03246-3
Blanch, R.J., McMaster, D. & Patterson, T.J. Management of open globe injury: a narrative review. Eye 38, 3047–3051 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03246-3
Salvador-Culla B, Hogg J, Okonkwo A, Mulroy J, Figueiredo GS, Figueiredo FC. Severe chemical eye injuries – clinical outcomes and associated socio-economic factors. Scars Burns Heal. 2023;9:20595131231180367. doi: 10.1177/20595131231180367.
Murthy GVS. Targeting the vision of workers: World Sight Day 2023. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023;71(10):3275-6. doi: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_2431_23.
