Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34036613›Full record

Trial reportOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2021

Evaluation of training, patient and practitioner perspectives on community-based monitoring of patients with stable age-related macular degeneration compared to hospital-based care: The FENETRE study report no. 1.

Simon Read, John G Lawrenson, Robert A Harper, Thomas Hanley, Konstantinos Balaskas, Heather Waterman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
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

6 authors.

Simon ReadSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2445-283X
John G LawrensonSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2031-6390
Robert A HarperManchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5437-2553
Thomas HanleySchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Konstantinos BalaskasMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Heather WatermanFormerly, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7052-2734

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDescribe the development, delivery, acceptability and evaluation of a modular training programme for community-based, non-medical practitioners monitoring patients with quiescent neovascular age related macular degeneration (QnAMD). Also, report on a qualitative process evaluation conducted during the pilot phase of a randomised control trial (the FENETRE Study) exploring patient and practitioner acceptability of community-based QnAMD care relative to hospital-based care.

methodsLearning outcomes from The College of Optometrists' Medical Retina higher qualifications and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists' Common Clinical Competency Framework were used to develop a competency framework for QnAMD care. Training was delivered online, comprising six asynchronous lectures followed by two synchronous case-based discussion webinars, with an accredited assessment of 24 case vignettes. An anonymous evaluation survey was conducted with the first two FENETRE cohorts (n = 38). Separately, we undertook a qualitative process evaluation, sampling purposively in four hospitals and five community-based practices, interviewing nine patients and eight practitioners.

resultsSurvey responses (n = 26) showed community optometrists were very satisfied (n = 12; 46%) or satisfied (n = 14; 54%) with the training; feedback reflected by qualitative process evaluation data. Overall, optometrists also felt either confident (n = 15; 58%) or very confident (n = 8; 31%) in conducting AMD monitoring appointments following training, a finding also corroborated by interview data from optometrists participating in the initial pilot phase roll-out. Optometrists identified patient convenience and alleviating pressures in hospital care as the primary reasons for acceptability of community pathways. Data from patients entering community practices suggested they largely found this at least as safe and convenient as hospital care, although some patients randomised to hospital care perceived that as safer.

conclusionThis pilot study has shown the development and implementation of a collaborative community monitoring model is feasible, with satisfaction from community optometrists for training and accreditation, and broad acceptance for the pathway by both patients and practitioners.

Indexed as

Macular DegenerationOptometristsOptometryHospitalsHumansPilot Projectsaccreditationclinical competenceoptometryprimary health caresecondary carewet macular degeneration

Identifiers

PMID34036613
PMCPMC12852252

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.