Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42445929›Full record

ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2026

Exploring Parental Views of Remote Vision Testing in Children.

Kiran Pannu-Dhillon, Ahalya Subramanian, Miriam Conway

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kiran Pannu-DhillonCity St Georges University London, United Kingdom.
Ahalya SubramanianCity St Georges University London, United Kingdom.
Miriam ConwayCity St Georges University London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The rise of digital technologies has enabled vision testing via applications on phones, tablets, and computers, allowing assessments beyond clinical settings. While these tools empower parents to test their children's vision at home, little is known about the attitudes of parents in the United Kingdom (UK) toward this approach. This study examines parents perceived benefits and challenges of conducting vision tests for young children at home, either independently or with the help of a qualified clinician. Research aim: This qualitative study explores parents' perspectives on at-home remote vision testing in a paediatric population. Methodology: Data was collected via two online focus groups with parents of children aged 4-8 years old. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded to identify key patterns and themes. Results: Five key themes emerged: navigating trust in remote vision testing, impact of child demographics, desire for professional support, digital enablers and barriers, and appointment frequency influences desire for remote testing. Parents emphasised the need for training in remote vision testing to build confidence and skill. Potential benefits included reduced travel, time off work/school, and greater flexibility. Concerns around test accuracy, occlusion, and application use highlight the need for clear guidance and virtual supervision by professionals. Conclusion: Remote vision testing could be a reliable alternative to clinic visits, provided parents receive adequate training and support. Participants expressed concerns about the reliability of remote vision testing, particularly for younger or less cooperative children, but acknowledged benefits such as reduced travel, lower costs, and greater flexibility. While app-based testing was appealing, most preferred professional involvement, either in person or virtually, to ensure accuracy, reassurance, and follow-up support.

Indexed as

remote assessmentschool-aged childrenvision screeningvision testing

Identifiers

PMID42445929
PMCPMC13361081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.