Proficiency of eye drop instillation in postoperative cataract patients in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of postoperative instruction on proficiency of eye drop instillation following cataract surgery, and to determine whether such proficiency correlates with the prevalence and/or duration of irritation and pain experienced in operated eyes. DESIGN: This was a prospective, nonrandomized control trial with an educational intervention conducted via a single eye clinic in Accra, Ghana. PARTICIPANTS: The 218 subjects who completed the study were postoperative cataract surgery patients whose surgery had been funded by the nongovernmental organization Unite for Sight. METHODS: Patients were evaluated on their ability to administer eye drops correctly on their first attempt on postoperative day one. If unsuccessful, patients were given an educational session that consisted of verbal instructions and an educational video. Both groups (successful and unsuccessful) on the first postoperative day were tested again for proficiency on postoperative day 30. The baseline group was evaluated only on postoperative day 30 and consisted of 36 patients. RESULTS: Of the 133 patients who received the educational session on eye drop instillation, 112 (84%) exhibited proficiency on postoperative day 30 as compared with 29 of 49 patients (59%) who did not receive the intervention. Additionally, there were fewer reports of pain and irritation following cataract extraction in the patients who received the educational session. CONCLUSION: This study supports the efficacy of patient education in improving proficiency in eye drop instillation and in reducing pain and irritation following cataract extraction surgeries.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".