ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023
Predictors of Clinic Attendance After Community-Based Vision Screening.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. 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.
- Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine Program: Impact on Vision, Follow-up, and Costs.Ophthalmology · 2025Trial
- Article
- Access to Myopia Care in the United States-A Narrative Review.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
- Time spent on eye disease screening, optical care, and care navigation within a federally qualified health center.AJO international · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze appointment attendance rates and patient characteristics associated with follow-up adherence after referral from a community vision screening event. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who attended a 2021 or 2022 community vision screening event and were referred to the university clinic for further care. Appointments were offered without charge and scheduled at the event. Associations between patients' clinical and demographic characteristics and appointment attendance were assessed by binary logistical regression. Results: A total of 935 patients attended the annual community vision screening events held in 2021 and 2022. Of these patients, 117 (13%) were referred to the clinic for follow-up, of whom 56 (48%) attended their scheduled follow-up appointment. The most common reasons for clinic referral included cataract (12, 10%), diabetic retinopathy (11, 9%), glaucoma (9, 8%), and challenging refractive error (9, 8%). Health insurance and male gender were predictors of follow-up (odds ratio [OR] = 3.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19-7.99, P = 0.021 and OR = 2.72, 95% CI = 1.10-6.61, P = 0.035, respectively). Conclusions: Half of the referred patients followed up after vision screening. Providing appointment scheduling at the point of care and offering follow-up care at no cost may help to promote clinic follow-up, but further assessment of barriers to regular eye care is warranted. Health insurance most strongly predicted successful clinic attendance. Translational Relevance: This study emphasizes the enduring impact of health insurance status as a barrier to accessing comprehensive vision care.
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.