ArticleJournal of optometry
Public knowledge of low vision and blindness, and readability of on-topic online information.
Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinician and Patient Perspectives of Geographic Atrophy Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Spain: A Preliminary Exploratory Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The effect of visual acuity measurement on triage effectiveness in an ophthalmic emergency department.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Public awareness of low vision rehabilitation in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Accessible art in healthcare facilities: exploring perspectives of healthcare art for visually impaired people.Frontiers in medical technology · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the laymen knowledge of low vision and blindness concepts, and to assess the readability of some on-topic information available online.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed in March 2019. Knowledge was evaluated by means of an ad hoc questionnaire-survey with two dichotomous questions about concepts related to low vision and blindness, followed with a list of 10 true-or-false statements. Readability of two on-topic online texts of different complexity was evaluated asking participants to rate the difficulty they experienced on a Likert scale and, objectively, by means of the freeware INFLESZ Readability Scale for Spanish language. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA test (statistical significance: p < 0.05).
resultsFifty-two percent of 103 participants declared never having heard of low vision. Ninety-four percent participants were aware about the word blindness, although most of them misinterpreted it. Neither academic level nor age influenced knowledge (p > 0,05). Higher academic level was related to better readability scores of the complex online text (p < 0.05).
conclusionOverall, the general public has a limited awareness of low vision and a large misconception of blindness. Therefore, visual health education actions should aim at fostering knowledge and literacy on the issue. This strategy may encourage individuals to seek the advice of eye care providers in order to prevent and treat visual impairment, with relevant consequences in time, both in terms of quality of life and costs.
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.