↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Implementation of a vision-screening program in rural northeastern United States

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Implementation of a vision-screening program in rural northeastern United States
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s90321
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edmund Tsui, Andrew Siedlecki, Jie Deng, Margaret Pollard, Sandolsam Cha, Erin Salcone, Susan Pepin

Abstract

Rural populations comprise almost 20% of the US population and face unique barriers in receiving health care. We describe the implementation of a medical student-run free vision-screening clinic as a strategy to overcome barriers in accessing eye care in New Hampshire and Vermont. Medical students were trained by an ophthalmologist to administer screening eye examinations. Patients from New Hampshire and Vermont were enrolled through a free community clinic. Screening included a questionnaire, distance and near visual acuity, extraocular movements, confrontational visual fields, and Amsler grid. Patients who met predetermined screening criteria were referred to an ophthalmologist or optometrist for further evaluation. Data including patient demographics, appointment attendance, level of education, and diagnoses were recorded and analyzed. Of 103 patients (mean age of 45.5±12.3 years, 63% female), 74/103 (72%) were referred for further evaluation, and 66/74 (89%) attended their referral appointments. Abnormal ophthalmologic examination findings were observed in 58/66 (88%) patients who attended their referral appointment. Uncorrected refractive error was the most common primary diagnosis in 38% of referred patients. Other diagnoses included glaucoma suspect (21%), retinal diseases (8%), amblyopia (8%), cataract (6%), others (6%), and normal examination (12%). Of the 8/74 (11%) referred patients who did not attend their appointments, reasons included patient cancellation of appointment, work conflicts, or forgetfulness. Patients traveled a mean distance of 16.6 miles (range: 0-50 miles) to attend screening examinations. Mean time for patients' last effort to seek eye care was 7.1 years (range: 1-54 years). This study underscores the high prevalence of unmet eye care needs in a rural population. Furthermore, it demonstrates that using community health centers as a patient base for screening can yield a high referral attendance rate for this at-risk population and facilitate entrance into the eye care system in a rural setting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 44%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,309,724
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#199
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,717
of 250,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#7
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.