ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2023
The evaluation of an online nurse-assisted eye-screening tool in older adults receiving home healthcare.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the agreement between an online nurse-assisted eye-screening tool and reference tests in older adults receiving home healthcare and to collect user experiences.
methodsOlder adults (65+) receiving home healthcare were included. Home healthcare nurses assisted in administering the eye-screening tool at participants' homes. Approximately 2 weeks later, a researcher administered reference tests at participants' homes. Experiences from participants and home healthcare nurses were collected. Agreement in outcomes (distance and near visual acuity, with the latter being measured using two different optotypes, and macular problems) between the eye-screening tool and reference clinical testing was compared. A difference of less than ±0.15 logMAR was considered acceptable.
resultsA total of 40 participants were included. Here, we describe the results for the right eye; results for the left eye were similar. The mean difference between the eye-screening tool and reference tests for distance visual acuity was 0.02 logMAR. The mean difference between the eye-screening tool and reference tests using two different optotypes for near visual acuity was 0.06 and 0.03 logMAR, respectively. The majority of the individual data points were within the ±0.15 logMAR threshold (75%, 51% and 58%, respectively). The agreement between tests for macular problems was 75%. Participants and home healthcare nurses were generally satisfied with the eye-screening tool, although remarks for further improvements were made.
conclusionsThe eye-screening tool is promising for nurse-assisted eye screening in older adults receiving home healthcare, with the mostly satisfactory agreement. After implementing the eye-screening tool in practice, cost-effectiveness needs to be investigated.
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.