ArticlePloS one2020
Parents and teachers of children in special education settings value in-school eyecare and written reports of visual status.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical assessment, investigation, diagnosis and initial management of cerebral visual impairment: a consensus practice guide.Eye (London, England) · 2023Guideline
- Comparison of unmet health care needs in children with intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder and both disorders combined.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate parent and teacher opinion of the provision of in-school eyecare and jargon-free written reporting of visual status for children in special educational settings. PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsA nationally-agreed, in-school eyecare framework for children attending special schools which recommends a full eye examination, dispensing of spectacles and provision of a jargon-free written report of visual outcomes to parents and teachers, was provided to 200 children (mean age 10 years, 9 months; 70% male) attending a special school in the UK. The written 'Vision Report' detailed, in lay-language, results from the eye examination and provided practical advice to alleviate the impact of vision difficulties both at home and in the classroom. Following implementation of the framework, parents and teachers completed a feedback questionnaire to determine their opinion of the in-school eye examination and utility of the Vision Report.
resultsParents of 123 participants returned a feedback questionnaire. Eighty-eight participants were represented by the 23 teachers who returned a questionnaire. The in-school eyecare was rated positively for children in special education by 82.4% of parents and 80.9% of teachers. Key benefits included the familiarity of the in-school setting (81.3% of parents and 100% of teachers agree), the convenience of the setting for parents (74.0% of parents and 100% of teachers agree), and the opportunity for teachers to speak directly to eyecare providers regarding a child's visual needs (82.6% of teachers agree). The information provided by the Vision Report was deemed useful day-to-day by 78.3% of parents and 100% of teachers. The majority (80%) of teachers implemented classroom modifications suggested in the report, whereas only 47.9% of parents reported implementation of modifications at home.
conclusionsProvision of in-school eyecare is valued by parents and teachers of children in special education settings. Jargon-free, written reports of visual status are valued and utilised by parents and teachers. Further support is required to aid parents in implementing vision modifications at home.
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.