MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883323624 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30329-2

Effect of providing near glasses on productivity among rural Indian tea workers with presbyopia (PROSPER): a randomised trial

2018· article· en· W2883323624 on OpenAlexaff
Priya Adhisesha Reddy, Nathan Congdon, Graeme MacKenzie, Parikshit Gogate, Qing Wen, Catherine Jan, Mike Clarke, Jordan Kassalow, Ella Gudwin, Ciarán O’Neill, Ling Jin, Jianjun Tang, Ken Bassett, David Hunter Cherwek, Rahul Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUlverscroft Foundation
KeywordsPresbyopiaMedicineProductivityOptometryVisual acuityRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)DemographyRefractive errorPhysical therapyGerontologyOphthalmologySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Presbyopia, age-related decline in near vision, is the most common cause of vision impairment globally, but no trials have assessed its workplace effects. We aimed to study the effect of near glasses on the productivity of tea workers with presbyopia. METHODS: This randomised trial was done in tea pickers aged 40 years or older in Assam, India, with unaided near visual acuity (NVA) lower than 6/12 in both eyes, correctable to 6/7·5 with near glasses; unaided distance vision 6/7·5 or greater; and no eye disease. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive free glasses optimising NVA at working distance (cost including delivery US$10·20 per person), either immediately (intervention group) or at closeout (control group). Participants were stratified by age, sex, and productivity. The primary outcome (investigator-masked) was the difference between groups in the change in mean daily weight of tea picked (productivity), between the 4-week baseline period (June, 2017) and the 11-week evaluation period (July 24, 2017, to Oct 7, 2017). Workers' income was tied to their productivity. Compliance with study glasses was assessed at seven unannounced visits. Results were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03228199. FINDINGS: Between July 3, 2017, and July 15, 2017, 1297 (48·1%) of 2699 permanent workers met the age criteria and consented for eye examinations. 751 (57·9%) fulfilled vision criteria and were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=376) or control (n=375) groups. Groups did not differ substantially in baseline characteristics. No participants owned glasses at baseline, 707 (94·1%) received the allocated intervention, and all were followed up and analysed. Between the baseline and evaluation periods, mean productivity in the intervention group increased from 25·0 kg per day to 34·8 kg per day (an increase of 9·84 kg per day), a significantly higher increase than in the control group (from 26·0 kg per day to 30·6 kg per day; an increase of 4·59 kg per day), corresponding to a between-group difference of 5·25 kg per day (95% CI 4·50-5·99; 21·7% relative productivity increase; effect size 1·01 [95% CI 0·86-1·16]; p<0·0001). Intervention-group compliance with study glasses reached 84·5% by closeout. Regression model predictors of greater productivity increase included intervention group membership (5·25 kg per day [95% CI 4·60-5·91], p<0·0001) and, among intervention participants, older age (p=0·039) and better compliance with the intervention (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: A substantial productivity increase was achieved in this rural cohort by providing glasses to correct presbyopia, with little cost and high intervention uptake. FUNDING: Clearly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations144
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207