ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2025
Stakeholders' perspectives on a digital myopia screening program in children: a qualitative analysis.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 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: This study was aimed at identifying barriers and opportunities to use a self-administered online refractive eye test by various stakeholders of a pediatric vision screening program. Methods: This qualitative study performed semi-structured interviews with myopic children and their parents, eye care professionals, and policymakers. Three topic lists were developed, delineating themes to identify gaps, barriers, and opportunities. Interviews were anonymously recorded, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis. Quantitative data was acquired from a concomitant clinical validation study. Results: In total, 14 interviews were conducted, of which seven were with children and their parents, four with eye care professionals, and three with policymakers. The patients and parents were positive about the instructions and age appropriateness. They noted that the test could be designed as more child-friendly and preferred receiving feedback during the test. Eye care professionals and policymakers saw potential for using the test in children aged ≥12 without high refractive errors, yet they also underlined the false-positives rates, impacting care demand and costs. The population refraining from participation was expected to have higher health gains, yet including them was expected to be challenging without facilitating awareness. Conclusions: This qualitative study shows the perspectives for an online pediatric refractive screening. The patients and parents were open to self-administered screening and suggested improvements. The eye care professionals and policymakers were receptive to screening but also cautious, highlighting costs and scientific reliability. For better implementation, the policymakers underlined the relevance of the screening criteria, while the eye care professionals recommended targeting a specific population at risk that benefits most rather than screening the whole population.
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.