Low‐vision Service Provision by Optometrists
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To document the degree to which Canadian optometrists are involved in the provision of low-vision (LV) care and their referral patterns. To investigate the barriers to providing optometric low-vision services (LVS). METHODS: Practicing optometrists across Canada were randomly sampled and invited to participate in a questionnaire that included questions on personal profile, primary practice profile, levels of LV care offered, patterns of referral, and barriers to provision of LV care. Questions included a combination of multiple choice and open-ended formats, and included hypothetical cases. RESULTS: A total of 459 optometrists responded (response rate, 24.8%). Optometrists estimated that 1% (range, 0 to 100%) of their patients were LV patients yet also estimated that 10% of their patients had acuity equal to or worse than 20/40. Thirty-five percent of respondents indicated that their primary practice offered LV care, 75.6% would manage a patient with minimum disability and simple goals themselves, whereas 10.7% would manage a patient with more than minimal visual disability who needed more specialized LV devices (e.g., telescopes, electronic aids, and custom-designed microscopes); 84.3% of optometrists would assess for basic magnification and lighting in a hypothetical patient with early age-related macular degeneration, whereas 15% would undertake full LV rehabilitation in advanced age-related macular degeneration. Optometrists commonly referred to CNIB (formerly the Canadian National Institute for the Blind), yet only 10.7% of respondents almost always received a written report after referral. Those who would not undertake LV assessment stated that they lacked the knowledge, equipment, or experience; that LV assessment is too time consuming; and that the cost is too prohibitive. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive study of LVS provision by optometrists in Canada. In order for optometrists to become more involved in LVS, there is a need for more LV education, provincial health coverage of optometric LVS, and better collaboration communication between LV providers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it