ArticlePloS one2024
Barriers to the uptake of eye care services: A cross-sectional survey from rural and urban communities.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Glaucoma: Why it Remains a Leading Cause of Blindness Worldwide.Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde · 2025Review
- Evaluating Eye Care Services in South Africa's Limpopo Province Using Donabedian`s Framework: Insights into Structures, Processes, and Outcomes.Clinical optometry · 2025Article
- Unveiling community-level factors: a multilevel mixed-effect analysis of eye care service utilization and associated factors in Andabet, Northwest Ethiopia.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the barriers to the uptake of eye care services in urban and rural communities in Papua New Guinea.
methodsThis was a population-based cross-sectional descriptive study and involved multi-stage sampling. Communities were randomly selected from each of the three clusters of Madang District for free eye care outreaches from June to September 2022. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data from the outreach patients. The study excluded attendees who refused to consent. Responses were rated from 1 (not a barrier) to 10 (a very strong barrier). The p-value significance was set at ≤ 0.05.
resultsThe majority of the 972 participants (60.2%) were from rural communities. The mean age of participants was 40.82 ± 13.14 years. Almost two-thirds of the participants (61.4%) never had an eye examination before this study was conducted. All the participants reported that time constraint, insufficient income, good vision in the fellow eye, not considering their eye conditions as serious issues and cultural beliefs were personal barriers to accessing eye care services. Provider-related challenges included long waiting periods at eye clinics and fear of procedure complications. There were differences in barriers with respect to the participants' demographic clusters.
conclusionThere are major personal- and service-related barriers to eye care services in Madang. These barriers could be overcome through strategic human resource development, health education, school screening programs, and establishing eye care centres in the communities to improve the uptake of eye care services in Madang and more widely across the country.
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.