ArticleScientific reports2026
Perspectives and lessons from a community-based collaborative eye care model in Singapore.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Primary Eye Care (PEC) model aimed to right-site patients with non-complex eye conditions by upskilling optometrists. However, there is a paucity of studies examining healthcare professionals' and patients' perceptions and context that influenced implementation of community-based eye care model. This study aimed to explore contextual factors (e.g., interprofessional relationships, patients' perceptions) that influenced implementation of PEC and potential strategies to the identified barriers. Qualitative research design was adopted to elicit the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals. Eight focus group discussions (FGDs) and four in-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted with 32 healthcare professionals, and 12 IDIs were conducted with 14 patients/caregivers between June 2023 to March 2024. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using an inductive approach. Three themes were identified that influenced the implementation of PEC. First, a bidirectional ophthalmologist-optometrists partnership supported implementation and maintenance of high-quality care. PEC's high-quality care experienced by the ophthalmologists influenced their motivation to refer patients to PEC paving the way for responsibility transfer and role expansion. Second, limited interprofessional interactions between primary care physicians and optometrists impacted the awareness of PEC's services and quality of care, dampening referral motivation. Third, patients' awareness of PEC integration with hospital services and optometrists' capability influenced acceptance of PEC referrals. To enhance primary care physicians' awareness and address patients' concern on PEC integration with hospital services, PEC team will need to prioritise active engagement with primary care physicians and dissemination of interactive patient education.
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.