Trial reportBMC public health2024
Effect of no eyeglasses sales on the quality of eye care: an experimental evidence from China.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundEye examinations and eyeglasses acquisition are typically integrated into a cohesive procedure in China. We conducted a randomized controlled trial using incognito standardized patient (SP) approach to evaluate the impact of separating eyeglasses sales on the accuracy of final prescription.
methods52 SPs were trained to provide standardized responses during eye examinations, and undergoing refraction by a senior ophthalmologist at a national-level clinical center. SPs subsequently received eye examinations at 226 private optical shops and public hospitals in Shaanxi, northwestern China. The visits were randomly assigned to either control group, where SPs would typically purchase eyeglasses after refraction, or treatment group, where SPs made an advance declaration not to purchase eyeglasses prior to refraction. The dioptric difference between the final prescriptions provided by local refractionists and expert in the better-seeing eye was determined using the Vector Diopteric Distance method, and the completeness of exams was assessed against national standards. Multiple regressions were conducted to estimate the impact of no eyeglasses sales on the accuracy of the final prescription of local refractionists, as well as the completeness of examinations.
resultsAmong 226 eye exams (73 in public hospitals, 153 in private optical shops), 133 (58.8%) were randomized to control group and 93 (41.2%) to no eyeglasses sales group. The inaccuracy rate of final prescriptions provided by local refractionists (≥ 1.0 D, experts' final prescription as the reference) was 25.6% in control group, while 36.6% in no-sale group (P = 0.077). The likelihood of providing inaccurate final prescriptions was significantly higher in no-sale group compared to control group (OR = 1.607; 95% CI: 1.030 to 2.508; P = 0.037). This was particularly evident in private optical shops (OR = 2.433; 95% CI: 1.386 to 4.309; P = 0.002). In terms of process quality, the no-sale group performed significantly less subjective refraction (OR = 0.488; 95% CI: 0.253 to 0.940; P = 0.032) and less testing SP's own eyeglasses (OR = 0.424; 95% CI: 0.201 to 0.897; P = 0.025). The duration of eye exams was 3.917 min shorter (95% CI: -6.798 to -1.036; P = 0.008) in no-sale group.
conclusionsSeparating eyeglasses sales from optical care could lead to worse quality of eye care. Policy makers should carefully consider the role of economic incentives in healthcare reform.
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.