MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117145168 · doi:10.3390/ijerph23010007

Mobile Eye Units in the United States and Canada: A Narrative Review of Structures, Services and Challenges

2025· article· en· W7117145168 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valeria Villabona-Martínez, Anna Zdunek, Jessica Y. Jiang, Paula A. Sepulveda-Beltran, Zeila Hobson, Evan L. Waxman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFoundation of the Pennsylvania Medical SocietyHillman FoundationHenry L. Hillman FoundationJewish Healthcare Foundation
KeywordsOutreachNarrativeEye careNarrative reviewMobile deviceMEDLINEPatient care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Mobile Eye Units (MEUs) have emerged as practical innovations to overcome geographic, financial, and systemic obstacles to eye care. Although numerous programs operate across the United States and Canada, a narrative review describing their structure, implementation and services, remain limited. This narrative review examines various MEUs models in the United States and Canada, using real-world examples to highlight each model’s structure, services, populations served, and key benefits and limitations. Methods: We performed a narrative review of peer-reviewed and gray literature published from 1990 to August 2025, identifying mobile eye units in the United States and Canada. Programs were grouped into four operational models based on services, equipment, and implementation characteristics. Ophthalmology residency program websites in the United States were also reviewed to assess academic involvement in mobile outreach. Results: We identified four operational MEU models: Fully Equipped Mobile Units (FEMUs), Semi-Mobile Outreach Units (SMOUs), School-Based Vision Mobile Units (SBVMUs), and Hybrid Teleophthalmology Units (HTOUs). FEMUs provide comprehensive on-site diagnostic capabilities but require substantial financial and logistical resources. SMOUs are lower-cost and flexible but offer more limited diagnostics. SBVMUs facilitate early detection in children and reduce school-based access barriers but depend on school coordination. HTOUs expand specialist interpretation through remote imaging, although their success relies on reliable digital infrastructure. Across all models, follow-up and continuity of care remain major implementation challenges. Approximately 21% of U.S. ophthalmology residency programs publicly report involvement in mobile outreach. Conclusions: MEUs play a critical role in reducing geographic and structural barriers to eye care for underserved populations across United States and Canada. However, limited outcome reporting, particularly regarding follow-up rates and continuity of care, hinders broader assessment of their effectiveness. Strengthening the integration of MEUs with patient navigators, integrated electronic health record, insurance support and support of local health networks is essential for improving long-term sustainability and impact.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.015
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207