Comparing paediatric optometric vision care in Canada over a 14‐year period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In Canada, teaching in paediatric eye care has increased in the past decade both within the optometry curriculum and as continuing education to optometrists. Paediatric vision care guidelines have also been established by North American optometric associations. This study examined whether this exposure was associated with changes in paediatric eye care in Canada over a 14-year period. METHODS: Canadian optometrists were invited to participate in an anonymous 35-item survey in 2007 and 2021. The surveys sought to investigate optometrist's recommendations for first eye examinations, the number of paediatric patients seen in a typical week and preparedness to provide eye examinations to children. Response frequencies were determined for each survey item. RESULTS: Across Canada, 133/1000 (13.3%) and 261/~6419 (~4.1%) optometrists responded to the survey in 2007 and 2021, respectively. No significant difference was found in the number of years practicing, days per week in practice and total number of patients seen per week. The modal age optometrists recommended children be seen for their first eye examination changed from 3-4 years in 2007 (53%) to 6-12 months in 2021 (61%). In 2007, 87% of respondents provided eye examinations to children <2 years, increasing to 94% in 2021 (p = 0.02). Despite a reduction in the recommended age between the two survey years, the most frequent age children were seen for their first eye examination was 3-4 years (30% in both surveys) and the most common age seen in a typical week remained unchanged (4-6 years-56% 2007; 66% 2021). CONCLUSION: Although optometrists' willingness to provide paediatric eye care increased over the past 14 years, the number of children seen in a typical week did not change. Barriers to determine why more children are not being seen at an earlier age need to be investigated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".