ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Utility of primary care Vision Centres in increased uptake of formal eye care following ocular injury in rural South India.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo estimate the 12-month occurrence of self-reported ocular trauma, its determinants and care-seeking patterns in South India, emphasising the Vision Centres (VCs) role in service utilisation.
methodsA population-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted among 17,397 participants in Theni district, Tamil Nadu. Data were collected on demographics, socioeconomic status, injury characteristics, care-seeking behaviour, visual outcome and treatment adherence.
resultsAnnual occurrence of self-reported ocular trauma was 1.1% (n = 191; mean age 42.6 years, SD ± 17.2). Injury occurrence increased with age, peaking at 1.8% among those aged 40-59 years and was higher in men (1.4% vs 0.9%; p = 0.0015) and manual workers. In adjusted analysis, age ≥40 years (OR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.07-2.15; p = 0.018) and occupation (unskilled/semi-skilled: OR 2.53, 95% CI: 1.60-4.00, p < 0.001; farmer/agricultural coolies: OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.12-4.34, p = 0.023) were associated with injury, while women had lower odds (OR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.87; p = 0.004). Most injuries were foreign body (33%) and blunt trauma (31%). Overall, 84.3% sought formal care, primarily at eye hospitals (50.3%) or VCs (46.0%), with 95.9% managed entirely at VCs; only 4.1% required referral. No sociodemographic factors significantly influenced utilisation. Rural and caste-related patterns shaped provider preference: rural and Most Backward Community members attended VCs, while Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe participants preferred hospitals. Treatment adherence was high (93.1%).
conclusionsAlthough the annual occurrence of self-reported ocular trauma was relatively low, the high rates of formal care-seeking and adherence highlight the effectiveness of community-based eye care through VCs. Sustaining and scaling such models, while addressing residual inequities, will be crucial to reducing trauma-related visual loss.
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.