ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2018
Distribution of optometric practices relative to deprivation index in Scotland.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence and costs of optical correction for childhood myopia in Scotland.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Article
- Shifting left for getting it right: Lessons from primary care optometry developments in Scotland.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Children with Additional Support Needs Risk Missing Out on Effective Vision Screening: Audit and Survey Considering Attendance Rates and Parent Reported Barriers to Service Access, including Recommendations for Improvement.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2025Article
- Glaucoma treatment and deprivation: time-series analysis of general practice prescribing in England.BJGP open · 2024Article
- The relationship between multiple deprivation and severity of glaucoma at diagnosis.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Is there an association of socioeconomic deprivation with acute primary angle closure?Eye (London, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The UK National Health Service aims to provide universal availability of healthcare, and eye-care availability was a primary driver in the development of the Scottish General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) model. Accordingly, a relatively equal distribution of optometry practices across socio-economic areas is required. We examined practice distribution relative to deprivation. Methods: 672 practices were sampled from nine Health Boards within Scotland. Practices were assigned a deprivation ranking by referencing their postcode with the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) tool (Scottish Executive National Statistics: General Report. 2016). Results: Averaged across Health Boards, the share of practices for the five deprivation quintiles was 25, 33, 18, 14 and 11% from most to least deprived area, respectively. Although there was some variation of relative practice distribution in individual Health Boards, 17 of the 45 regions (nine Health Boards, five quintiles) had a close balance between population and share of practices. There was no clear pattern of practice distribution as a function of deprivation rank. Analysis revealed good correlation between practice and population share for each Health Board, and for the combined data (R2 = 0.898, P < 0.01). Conclusion: Distribution of optometry practices is relatively balanced across socio-economic areas, suggesting that differences in eye-examination uptake across social strata are unrelated to service availability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.