Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39767977›Full record

ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Pharmaceutical Prescribing Privileges for Optometrists to Combat Childhood Myopia in Singapore: Public Health Policy Review and Analysis.

Tiong Peng Yap, Masuma Pervin Mishu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Tiong Peng YapIGARD Paediatric Optometry and Vision Therapy Centre, Singapore 229469, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8395-7542
Masuma Pervin MishuInstitute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6545-9117

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Singapore's national myopia prevention efforts have largely focused on school vision screening and public education on outdoor activities in the past two decades. Given the emergence of evidence-based myopia interventions, this policy review and analysis investigates the potential benefits and drawbacks of optometrist prescribing privileges as it has been proposed to reduce the barriers to access effective interventions, such as combined therapy (e.g., orthokeratology treatment and low-dose atropine therapy). In this policy analysis, two policy options were identified to be feasible based on evidence from a systematic literature search and they were analysed along with status quo using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Policy Analysis Framework. This includes independent prescribing and supplementary prescribing, where the former entails autonomous clinical decision making, and the latter entails co-management with ophthalmological supervision. The policy review and analysis found independent prescribing the most favourable and concluded that this should be implemented in view of its benefits for the community. Public health impact is expected to be substantial due to increased patient access, reduced treatment costs, early interventions, improved treatment compliance, and reduced wait times and inconvenience. It is feasible because treatment processes can be streamlined, and it can be implemented based on existing collaborative prescribing frameworks. Economical and budgetary impact is also substantial given the direct savings generated, which can consequently help to reduce the disease burden.

Indexed as

evidence-based myopia interventionsmyopiapublic health policy review

Identifiers

PMID39767977
PMCPMC11726763

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.