Perceptions of a Teleophthalmology Screening Program for Diabetic Retinopathy in Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Urban Primary Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Teleophthalmology has improved diabetic retinopathy screening, and should be expanded in urban areas, where most unscreened individuals reside. In this study, we explored facilitators of and barriers to teleophthalmology in primary care settings in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 7 health-care providers and 7 individuals with diabetes to explore their perspectives of teleophthalmology in urban primary care settings. Interview data were analyzed using interpretive thematic analysis to generate themes. RESULTS: Six themes were identified. Facilitators included patient-centred implementation, access to teleophthalmology at primary care sites and patients' trust in their providers' recommendations. Barriers included patients' lack of understanding of diabetic retinopathy and the health-care system, providers' lack of interest and the need to streamline administrative processes. CONCLUSIONS: Although teleophthalmology was well-received by patients, there was limited interest from primary care providers. Strategies for increasing uptake include increasing primary care providers' awareness of teleophthalmology's value in urban centres, improving administrative processes and centralizing patient recruitment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".