ArticleBMJ open2025
Identifying barriers and potential solutions to improve equitable access to community eye services: an exploratory sequential mixed methods study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Identifying barriers and potential solutions to improve equitable access to community eye services in central Kenya: a rapid exploratory sequential mixed methods study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical trial methods for family medicine and primary care.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
- Enhanced patient counselling and SMS reminder messages to improve access to community-based eye care services in Meru, Kenya: statistical analysis plan for a Bayesian adaptive trial.Wellcome open research · 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAccess to care varies by sociodemographic group, with some groups facing higher barriers to care than others. This study will use novel methods to explore barriers and potential solutions as perceived by members of the population groups who are least able to access care. We aim to use rapid yet robust mixed methods that allow us to identify generalisable findings within each programme and testable service modifications to improve equitable access to care; delivering non-tokenistic findings within a matter of weeks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multiphased exploratory sequential mixed methods study. We will use the same approach in four different screening programmes, in Botswana, India, Kenya and Nepal. First, we will conduct interviews with people purposively selected from the sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest odds of accessing care within each programme. We will explore their perceptions of barriers and potential service modifications that could boost attendance at eye clinics among people from these 'left-behind' groups. We will use a deductive analytic matrix to facilitate the rapid analysis of qualitative data. Space will be made for the inductive identification of themes that are not necessarily captured in the framework. Sample size will be determined by thematic saturation. Next, we will conduct a survey with a representative sample of non-attenders from the same left-behind groups, asking them to rank each suggested service modification by likely impact. Finally, we will convene a multistakeholder workshop to assess each service modification based on ranking, likely impact, feasibility, cost and potential risks. The most promising service modifications will be implemented and evaluated in a follow-on randomised controlled trial, the methods for which will be reported elsewhere. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project has been approved by independent research ethics committees in Botswana, Kenya, India, Nepal and the UK. We will disseminate our findings through local community advisory boards, national eye screening meetings, in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.
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.