ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Ease of Use and Acceptability of an at-Home Vision Screening Kit in a Primarily Non-English Speaking, Underserved Population.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The study aims to investigate the ease of use, acceptability, and accuracy of a simple at-home vision screening kit in a non-English speaking socially disadvantaged population. Design: This is a single site, prospective, cross-sectional study. Methods: Patients at a clinic that provided free medical care to an urban, predominantly Asian, underserved population were invited to participate in this study. We designed a program for at-home vision assessment, which consisted of a simple at-home vision kit (Rosenbaum near card, Amsler grid) and instructions for use given in verbal and written form in the patient's own language. Testing was performed in each eye during an in-person visit. Patients were then asked to test at-home and were later contacted by telephone to record the results. A survey questionnaire assessing the ease of use and acceptability of the vision kit was then administered. Results: One hundred and one of 141 patients completed the study. Of those patients, 60.4% were female, 79.2% were Asian, 95% were born outside of the United States, 81.2% did not speak English as their primary language, 47.5% were not enrolled in health insurance, and 67.3% expressed difficulty in accessing eye care. The results of our survey (n = 101) demonstrated that 90% would continue utilizing the vision screening kit, 91.1% would recommend the vision screening kit to others, and 82.2% rated the vision screening kit as extremely easy to use. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for the in-person VA logMAR scores and at-home VA logMAR scores was calculated to be Conclusion: Our tailored protocol and design of a simple at-home vision screening kit was widely accepted and easy to use by an underserved population in which English was not the primary spoken language. The kit demonstrated excellent correlation between in-person and at-home VA results.
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.