ArticleBMJ open2022
Quality of refractive error care (Q.REC) in Cambodia, Malaysia and Pakistan: protocol for a cross-sectional unannounced standardised patient study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Approaches for delivery of refractive and optical care services in community and primary care settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Quantifying the impact of disease severity changes on the burden of blindness: A global decomposition analysis.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Strategies to address inequity of uncorrected refractive error in the Western Pacific: A modified Delphi process.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- Quality of refractive error care in Pakistan: an unannounced standardised patient study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Improving eye care quality through brief verbal intervention on optometry service provider by using unannounced standardized patient with refractive error: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- The Agreement Between Virtual Patient and Unannounced Standardized Patient Assessments in Evaluating Primary Health Care Quality: Multicenter, Cross-sectional Pilot Study in 7 Provinces of China.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are 161 million people living with vision impairment, due to uncorrected refractive errors. A further 510 million people are living with near-vision impairment. There is a need for clearly defined indicators that capture the quality of refractive error service outputs and outcomes and provide insights to shape, change and stimulate action. This study aims to evaluate the quality of refractive error care (Q.REC) in Cambodia, Malaysia and Pakistan, by using unannounced standardised patients (USPs) to identify the proportion of prescribed and dispensed spectacles appropriate for people's refractive error needs and pinpoint/detail opportunities for quality improvement. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional Q.REC study will be conducted in randomly selected optical services in Cambodia (180 services, 900 USP visits), the Klang Valley in Malaysia (66 services, 198 USP visits) and in Jhang, Sahiwal and Khanewal districts of Punjab region/state in Pakistan (64 services, 256 USP visits). USPs will receive baseline refractions by three skilled study optometrists/refractionists trained in the Q.REC protocol. USPs will then visit individual optical services, undergo a refraction, purchase spectacles or lenses (if recommended) and record observations about which elements of a refraction and dispensing were conducted. The study optometrist/refractionist will assess each pair of dispensed spectacles by examining the USP's aided visual acuity and visual comfort at distance and/or near and compare the lens prescription to the averaged baseline refraction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC210102), the National Ethics Committee for Health Research in Cambodia (043 NECHR), National Medical Research Registry and the Medical Research and Ethics Committee (NMRR-21-689-59279) in Malaysia and the College of Ophthalmology & Allied Vision Sciences Ethical Review Board (COAVS 545/2021) in Pakistan. Written informed consent will be obtained from USPs. Service owners will have the opportunity to opt-out verbally or in writing. Results will be disseminated locally through workshops including the relevant local ministry of health personnel and stakeholders, published in peer-reviewed publications and presented at national and international conferences.
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.