Stakeholders' perspectives on a digital myopia screening program in children: a qualitative analysis.

IF 0.9
Frontiers in ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-07-08 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fopht.2025.1585320
Casper van der Zee, Janneau L J Claessens, Petra T Rausch-Koster, Saskia M Imhof, Ruth M A van Nispen, Robert P L Wisse, Hilde P A van der Aa
{"title":"Stakeholders' perspectives on a digital myopia screening program in children: a qualitative analysis.","authors":"Casper van der Zee, Janneau L J Claessens, Petra T Rausch-Koster, Saskia M Imhof, Ruth M A van Nispen, Robert P L Wisse, Hilde P A van der Aa","doi":"10.3389/fopht.2025.1585320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study was aimed at identifying barriers and opportunities to use a self-administered online refractive eye test by various stakeholders of a pediatric vision screening program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study performed semi-structured interviews with myopic children and their parents, eye care professionals, and policymakers. Three topic lists were developed, delineating themes to identify gaps, barriers, and opportunities. Interviews were anonymously recorded, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis. Quantitative data was acquired from a concomitant clinical validation study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 14 interviews were conducted, of which seven were with children and their parents, four with eye care professionals, and three with policymakers. The patients and parents were positive about the instructions and age appropriateness. They noted that the test could be designed as more child-friendly and preferred receiving feedback during the test. Eye care professionals and policymakers saw potential for using the test in children aged ≥12 without high refractive errors, yet they also underlined the false-positives rates, impacting care demand and costs. The population refraining from participation was expected to have higher health gains, yet including them was expected to be challenging without facilitating awareness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This qualitative study shows the perspectives for an online pediatric refractive screening. The patients and parents were open to self-administered screening and suggested improvements. The eye care professionals and policymakers were receptive to screening but also cautious, highlighting costs and scientific reliability. For better implementation, the policymakers underlined the relevance of the screening criteria, while the eye care professionals recommended targeting a specific population at risk that benefits most rather than screening the whole population.</p>","PeriodicalId":73096,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in ophthalmology","volume":"5 ","pages":"1585320"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12279491/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fopht.2025.1585320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study was aimed at identifying barriers and opportunities to use a self-administered online refractive eye test by various stakeholders of a pediatric vision screening program.

Methods: This qualitative study performed semi-structured interviews with myopic children and their parents, eye care professionals, and policymakers. Three topic lists were developed, delineating themes to identify gaps, barriers, and opportunities. Interviews were anonymously recorded, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis. Quantitative data was acquired from a concomitant clinical validation study.

Results: In total, 14 interviews were conducted, of which seven were with children and their parents, four with eye care professionals, and three with policymakers. The patients and parents were positive about the instructions and age appropriateness. They noted that the test could be designed as more child-friendly and preferred receiving feedback during the test. Eye care professionals and policymakers saw potential for using the test in children aged ≥12 without high refractive errors, yet they also underlined the false-positives rates, impacting care demand and costs. The population refraining from participation was expected to have higher health gains, yet including them was expected to be challenging without facilitating awareness.

Conclusions: This qualitative study shows the perspectives for an online pediatric refractive screening. The patients and parents were open to self-administered screening and suggested improvements. The eye care professionals and policymakers were receptive to screening but also cautious, highlighting costs and scientific reliability. For better implementation, the policymakers underlined the relevance of the screening criteria, while the eye care professionals recommended targeting a specific population at risk that benefits most rather than screening the whole population.

Abstract Image

利益相关者对儿童数字近视筛查项目的看法:定性分析。
目的:本研究旨在确定儿童视力筛查项目的不同利益相关者使用自我管理的在线屈光测试的障碍和机会。方法:采用半结构化访谈法对近视儿童及其家长、眼科专业人员和政策制定者进行定性研究。制定了三个主题清单,列出了确定差距、障碍和机会的主题。访谈采用匿名记录、转录和专题分析编码。定量数据来自一项伴随的临床验证研究。结果:共进行了14次访谈,其中7次访谈儿童及其父母,4次访谈眼科专业人员,3次访谈政策制定者。患者和家长对指导和年龄的适宜性持肯定态度。他们指出,该测试可以设计得更适合儿童,更倾向于在测试过程中接受反馈。眼科保健专业人员和政策制定者看到了在12岁以上没有高度屈光不正的儿童中使用该测试的潜力,但他们也强调了假阳性率,影响了护理需求和成本。预计不参与的人口将获得更高的健康收益,但在不促进认识的情况下,将他们纳入预计将具有挑战性。结论:本定性研究显示了在线儿童屈光筛查的前景。患者和家长对自我管理的筛查和建议的改进持开放态度。眼科保健专业人员和政策制定者接受筛查,但也很谨慎,强调了成本和科学可靠性。为了更好地实施,政策制定者强调了筛查标准的相关性,而眼科保健专业人员建议针对受益最大的特定风险人群,而不是对整个人群进行筛查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信