ArticleBMJ open2025
Rapid sequential mixed-method study to identify barriers and explore solutions for improving equitable access to community-based eye care services in Uttar Pradesh, India.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn low-income and middle-income countries, significant geographical and socioeconomic inequalities affect access to eye care. This study explores an equity-focused approach to improve access to eye care services provided by a community-based eye care organisation in northern India.
designA sequential exploratory mixed-method approach.
settingA high-volume eye screening programme in north Indian villages. Individuals identified with eye care needs during the screening were referred to the six nearby primary eye care centres.
participants7578 individuals identified with eye needs through a community-based eye screening programme. Of these, 4431 (58.6%) were women and 3137 (41.4%) were men.Socioeconomic questions, developed by experts and lay representatives, were integrated into an ongoing digitally supported (Peek Vision) eye screening programme in north Indian villages. Data from referred individuals identified with eye needs were analysed using logistic regression with a mixed-effect model to identify socioeconomic characteristics most strongly associated with poor access to care after referral. A sequential exploratory mixed-method approach, including in-person interviews and follow-up telephonic surveys of individuals with these characteristics, was used. OUTCOME: To identify barriers and gather suggestions for improving attendance from groups least likely to attend services.
resultsOf 7627 individuals referred for eye care, 7578 (99.3%) participated in the study. Of those, 2937 (38.5%) attended the Vision Centre, to which they were referred. The least likely to attend were individuals aged >16, those with dependents, and those referred for non-cataract conditions. Among the 3939 individuals with all three characteristics, the attendance rate was 35.3% compared with 42.5% (p<0.001) among the rest. Interviews with this group highlighted transport, personalised counselling, information dissemination, subsidised spectacles and village leader involvement as key suggestions. A telephonic survey with 400 individuals confirmed that the top priorities were free transport, personalised counselling and subsidised spectacles.
conclusionSuggested programme improvements, including better counselling, reminder calls and transportation, could increase access among those least likely to access services after referral. This study demonstrates a two-step approach for identifying solutions from individuals facing the most significant barriers to care. We will go on to conduct trials of these suggested interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.