MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vision Health Care Providers?? Attitudes and Experiences with Preschool Vision Screening in Ontario

2004· article· en· W2062338969 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maureen J. Reed, Stephen P. Kraft

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersPublic Health Agency
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)MedicinePublic healthHealth careStandardizationFamily medicineNursingPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.435 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207