ArticleBMJ open2021
Vision impairment and differential access to eye health services in Aotearoa New Zealand: protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and enablers of access to diabetes eye care in Auckland, New Zealand: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Vision impairment and differential access to eye health services in Aotearoa New Zealand: a scoping review.BMJ public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn Aotearoa New Zealand, Māori and Pacific people experience worse health outcomes compared with other New Zealanders. No population-based eye health survey has been conducted, and eye health services do not generate routine monitoring reports, so the extent of eye health inequality is unknown. This information is required to plan equitable eye health services. Here we outline the protocol for a scoping review to report the nature and extent of the evidence reporting vision impairment, and the use of eye health services by ethnicity in New Zealand. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An information specialist will conduct searches on MEDLINE and Embase, with no limit on publication dates or language. We will search the grey literature via websites of relevant government and service provider agencies. Reference lists of included articles will be screened. Observational studies will be included if they report the prevalence of vision impairment, or any of the main causes (cataract, uncorrected refractive error, macular degeneration, glaucoma or diabetic retinopathy) or report the use of eye health services in New Zealand among people of any age. Two authors will independently review titles, abstracts and full-text articles, and complete data extraction. Overall findings will be summarised using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, with an emphasis on disaggregation by ethnicity where this information is available. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has not been sought as our review will only include published and publicly accessible data. We will publish the review in an open access peer-reviewed journal. We anticipate the findings will be useful to organisations and providers in New Zealand responsible to plan and deliver eye care services, as well as stakeholders in other countries with differential access to eye care. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol has been registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/yw7xb).
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.