ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2026
Barriers to Ophthalmologic Care Reported by Family Caregivers of Users and Non-Users With Intellectual Disabilities.
Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Barriers to Ophthalmologic Care Reported by Family Caregivers of Users and Non-Users With Intellectual Disabilities.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are more likely to experience vision-related impairments, yet they face many barriers to accessing eye care. Although previous studies have described these barriers, few have compared barriers reported by families who have and have not accessed ophthalmologic care, which may provide insight into barriers interpreted as anticipated or experienced.
objectiveThe study objectives are to compare barriers to ophthalmologic care reported by family caregivers of users and non-users and to interpret these differences as anticipated or experienced barriers.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted with 657 primary family caregivers in Taichung City and Hualien County, Taiwan, between August and October 2023. Caregivers selected from a list of 13 predefined barriers. Participants were classified as 'users' (n = 261) if they had taken their family member with IDs for an eye examination and 'non-users' (n = 396) otherwise. For interpretation, barriers reported significantly more often by non-users were labelled as 'anticipated', whereas those reported significantly more often by users were labelled as 'experienced'; these labels were based on service use status rather than direct temporal measurement. Logistic regression with marginal effects was used to identify predictors of the most common anticipated barrier.
resultsA clinic environment perceived as unwelcoming or inaccessible was reported by 17.6% of non-users and 4.5% of users (p < 0.001). Users more frequently reported difficulty participating during appointments or examinations (9.95% vs. 4.25%, p = 0.004), equipment that could not be adapted (8.0% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.043), limited availability of accessible assessment tools (7.1% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.043) and limited provider experience in delivering accessible care for people with IDs (7.6% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.003). Higher caregiver strain and having ≥ 2 vision-related conditions were associated with reporting the environmental barrier.
conclusionBarriers reported by non-users suggest that perceptions of clinics as unwelcoming or inaccessible may discourage families from seeking a first eye examination for people with IDs. Improving accessibility and the care environment, alongside staff training and adaptable equipment and assessment tools, may reduce barriers reported by both non-users and users.
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.