ArticleBMC health services research2025
Situation analysis of the social enterprises engaged in refractive error services delivery in Kenya.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo conduct a situational analysis of the social enterprises (SEs) engaged in refractive error services delivery in Kenya.
methodsThis was a sequential mixed method study conducted with commercial enterprises (CE), eye care professional's representatives from the Ministry of Health ophthalmic service unit and representatives from SEs. The study was undertaken in two phases with phase one aimed at identifying the SEs while phase two aimed at exploring the SEs. The participants were recruited purposively and through snowball sampling with data collected telephonically and through online Google form survey. The qualitative data was collected until thematic saturation was achieved. The descriptive data was presented in figures, as well as reported in terms of frequencies.
resultsOut of the 196 (28%) CE, only 49 (7.1%) reported referral and vision screening as some of the support they provide to SEs. The key barrier to SE integration into refractive error service delivery in conjunction with other eye care providers in Kenya, was lack of awareness on SE (n = 12; 41.4%) while cash flow was noted as the least cited barrier to SEs integration (n = 2; 13.8%). Reasons for the success of SE in the broader eye health ecosystem constituted mission, leadership skills and creativity. Policy regulation reported by the SE representatives (n = 14; 48.3%) was the key factor influencing the operations of SEs in Kenya. Factors negatively influencing integration of SE into refractive error service delivery in Kenya were categorized into unhealthy competition, inadequate human resources, predator SE (n = 19; 65.5%) and lack of proper policy regulation. Partnership, technology, cross-subsidization and skills development were identified as ideal for SE integration.
conclusionThis study found that SEs are worthy for integration into the eye health ecosystem to complement the dominant CE for effective refractive error service delivery. However, establishment of policies recognizing SEs and integration into the eye health ecosystem is desirable to address the challenges experienced by the SEs.
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.