Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40222576›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of ophthalmology2025

Understanding Patient Experience With Past Barriers to Eye Care and How Barriers Were Addressed in the Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine Program.

Emily Webber, Ming-Chen Lu, Maria A Woodward, Angela Elam, Amanda Bicket, Sarah Dougherty Wood, Denise John, Leroy Johnson, Martha Kershaw, Michele Heisler and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Emily WebberFrom the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (E.W., M.L., M.W., A.E., A.B., S.D.W., D.J., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Ming-Chen LuFrom the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (E.W., M.L., M.W., A.E., A.B., S.D.W., D.J., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Maria A WoodwardFrom the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (E.W., M.L., M.W., A.E., A.B., S.D.W., D.J., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (M.W., A.E., A.B., M.H., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Angela ElamFrom the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (E.W., M.L., M.W., A.E., A.B., S.D.W., D.J., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (M.W., A.E., A.B., M.H., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Amanda BicketFrom the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (E.W., M.L., M.W., A.E., A.B., S.D.W., D.J., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (M.W., A.E., A.B., M.H., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Sarah Dougherty WoodFrom the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (E.W., M.L., M.W., A.E., A.B., S.D.W., D.J., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Denise JohnFrom the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (E.W., M.L., M.W., A.E., A.B., S.D.W., D.J., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Leroy JohnsonHamilton Community Health Network (L.J.), Flint, Michigan, USA.
Martha KershawHope Clinic (M.K.), Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA.
Michele HeislerInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (M.W., A.E., A.B., M.H., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Department of Internal Medicine (M.H.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Paula Anne Newman-CaseyFrom the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (E.W., M.L., M.W., A.E., A.B., S.D.W., D.J., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (M.W., A.E., A.B., M.H., P.N.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Electronic address: panewman@med.umich.edu.

Funding

Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
Increasing Eye Care Utilization in Black Americans At High Risk For Glaucoma Using A Community-Engaged and Faith-Based InterventionK23MD016430 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ELAM, ANGELA R · 2021 to 2024
$678k
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U01 DP006442NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926NIMHD NIH HHS K23 MD016430
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo use community engaged research to understand barriers to eye care utilization and explore participant experiences with free glaucoma screenings through the Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program.

designQualitative study. SUBJECTS, PARTICIPANTS, AND/OR CONTROLS: Purposive sampling of 42 participants out of 254 total participants from 2 community clinics in Flint and Ypsilanti, Michigan enrolled between 10/29/21 and 12/22/21. METHODS, INTERVENTION, OR TESTING: We conducted semi-structured interviews that explored past barriers to eye care, motivations for attending and overall experience with the MI-SIGHT program. Interviews were transcribed then coded using Grounded Theory; and thematic analysis was completed.

main outcome measuresThemes were compared between (1) the 2 clinics; (2) those who did and did not screen positive for glaucoma; and (3) of those who screened positive for glaucoma, comparing between those randomized to standard care and those randomized to personalized coaching and education.

resultsThe most common past barriers to eye care included cost, insurance status, and transportation. Motivations to attending glaucoma screenings with the MI-SIGHT program included affordability, location of community clinics, and having a trusted referral source endorse the program. Overall, participants most valued the rapport and communication received when interacting with the ophthalmic technicians who also acted as care navigators as part of MI-SIGHT.

conclusionsThe MI-SIGHT program was able to address barriers such as cost and transportation through having free eye screenings located at the community clinic. Developing trust and rapport with the participants and the community clinics was critical to the program's high satisfaction rates.

Indexed as

GlaucomaHealth Services AccessibilityMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareTelemedicineAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMichiganMiddle AgedQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID40222576
PMCPMC12245581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.