ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Providing capacity in glaucoma care using trained and accredited optometrists: A qualitative evaluation.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community Optometrist-Led Monitoring of Quiescent Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: The FENETRE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe role of optometrists in glaucoma within primary and secondary care has been well described. Whilst many studies examined safety and clinical effectiveness, there is a paucity of qualitative research evaluating enablers and barriers for optometrists delivering glaucoma care. The aims of this study are to investigate qualitatively, and from a multi-stakeholder perspective whether optometric glaucoma care is accepted as an effective alternative to traditional models and what contextual factors impact upon their success.
methodsPatients were recruited from clinics at Manchester Royal Eye Hospital and nationally via a Glaucoma UK registrant database. Optometrists, ophthalmologists, and other stakeholders involved in glaucoma services were recruited via direct contact and through an optometry educational event. Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed anonymously, then analysed using the framework method and NVivo 12.
resultsInterviews and focus groups were conducted with 38 participants including 14 optometrists and 6 ophthalmologists (from all 4 UK nations), and 15 patients and 3 commissioners/other stakeholders. Themes emerging related to: enablers and drivers; challenges and barriers; training; laser; professional practice; the role of other health professionals; commissioning; COVID-19; and patient experience.
conclusionSuccess in developing glaucoma services with optometrists and other health professionals is reliant on multi-stakeholder input, investment in technology and training, inter-professional respect and appropriate time and funding to set up and deliver services. The multi-stakeholder perspective affirms there is notable support for developing glaucoma services delivered by optometrists in primary and secondary care, with caveats around training, appropriate case selection and clinical responsibility.
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.