Vision Health Care Providers?? Attitudes and Experiences with Preschool Vision Screening in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The validity of preschool vision screening has been questioned in the light of the World Health Organization's criteria for determining the validity of screening programs. However, recommendations toward preschool screening have been made by a number of organizations. Given the contrasting views of screening, the purpose of this study was to examine visual health care provider experiences and attitudes toward preschool screening. METHOD: Optometrists, public health administrators, pediatric ophthalmologists, and orthoptists were surveyed about opinions of, recommendations for, and experiences with preschool vision screening in Ontario. The survey focused on four areas, including general opinion of preschool screening, screening standards and practices, provider experience with preschool screening, and barriers to preschool screening. In addition, survey responses were broken down by regional access to health care. RESULTS: Overall, strong support for preschool vision screening and movement toward standardization of screening practice was found among all surveyed groups. Although support for vision screening in low health care access areas was strong, providers estimated that parent compliance to screening was weaker in low access areas. Providers also reported considerable variability in vision screening practices. In addition, although the majority of providers had been involved in a screening program, the majority was no longer involved because of lack of program organization, structure, and funding. Lack of sufficient funding, public education, organization of screening, training, and government support were listed as barriers to preschool vision screening. CONCLUSION: Providers are interested in the development of structured screening programs. However, although screening may be a way to offer some level of vision care service to low health care access areas, a number of factors need to be addressed in discussions of vision screening program standards or screening best practice. In general, preschool screening programs need to be structured, be supported, have quality control, and be evaluated.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".