ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Barriers to accessible ophthalmic imaging device uptake: an exploratory study of ophthalmology care provider perspectives.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesClinical ophthalmology often depends on imaging to support accurate diagnoses. However, traditional tabletop imaging machines often fail to accommodate patients with mobility impairments. Despite this, few clinical settings routinely use accessible ophthalmic imaging devices to address these concerns. This study aims to identify perceived barriers to the uptake of accessible ophthalmic imaging devices to inform changes and improve patient care.
methodsIn this exploratory mixed-methods survey study, a questionnaire was distributed to ophthalmology care providers across Australia from 2023 to 2024. Outcomes included perceived barriers to implementing accessible imaging equipment, perspectives on these devices and features improving accessibility.
resultsThe questionnaire returned 51 responses, equally distributed between public (51.3%, n = 20/39) and private (48.7%, n = 19/39) metropolitan healthcare settings. Participants included ophthalmic nurses (29.4%, n = 15/51), ophthalmology trainees (21.6%, n = 11/51), optometrists (17.6%, n = 9/51), orthoptists (13.7%, n = 7/51), ophthalmologists (7.8%, n = 4/51) and ophthalmic clinical assistants (9.8%, n = 5/51). Imaging was most difficult to provide for patients using wheelchairs (39.5%, n = 15/38). While most practitioners (74.4%, n = 29/39) were confident that accessible devices returned reliable images, 48.7% (n = 19/39) identified cost as a barrier, and 39.2% (n = 20/51) believed accessible devices were still difficult to use in patients with disabilities. Respondents reported that better design of tabletop-mounted systems, adaptability, training and funding would improve uptake and use of accessible devices.
conclusionsAccessibility for patients with mobility impairments needs further development. Intuitive design and access to funding may be key to improving the quality of care. Further studies should focus on patient perspectives and specific design features.
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.