Exploring the knowledge, attitudes, and practice towards child eye health: A qualitative analysis of parent experience focus groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of childhood blindness causes in low-income countries are treatable or avoidable. Parents or guardians are responsible for making decisions regarding a child's eye care. Understanding parents' awareness and perception of eye problems in crucial in helping to know parents' eye care-seeking behavior. OBJECTIVE: To determine parental knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding child eye health. METHODS: Seven focus groups were carried out in Northwest Ethiopia on knowledge, attitude and practice of parents towards child eye health. Their responses were tape-recorded and later transcribed. A thematic phenomenological approach was used for the analysis. RESULT: Seventy-one parents participated in the focus groups. Participants were aware of common eye problems like trachoma, trauma, and glaucoma. However, they were unaware of the causes and etiologies of childhood blindness. Participants perceived that eye problems could be treated with hygiene and food, and often held misconceptions about the cause of strabismus and utilization of wearing spectacles. CONCLUSION: The study revealed that parents are often unaware of the causes and etiologies of common childhood eye diseases, which has downstream effects on health-seeking behavior. Health promotion efforts, potentially through mass and social media, could be helpful to raise awareness, coupled with training of health professionals at primary and secondary health facility levels.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".