Understanding barriers and enablers to collaborative eye care in Queensland, Australia.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Katrina L Schmid, Melinda Toomey, Fiona Moore, Ho Ching Hui, Jeremy Lee, Jennifer Su, Jingjing Zhang, Xiaowei Zhang, Ann L Webber
{"title":"Understanding barriers and enablers to collaborative eye care in Queensland, Australia.","authors":"Katrina L Schmid, Melinda Toomey, Fiona Moore, Ho Ching Hui, Jeremy Lee, Jennifer Su, Jingjing Zhang, Xiaowei Zhang, Ann L Webber","doi":"10.1080/08164622.2025.2560968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Collaborative eye care, where the skills of health professionals are utilised to their maximum capability, enhances patient outcomes. Optometrists are highly skilled eye care practitioners and yet their involvement in collaborative care is relatively limited.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim was to understand the barriers and enablers to optometrists working in collaborative eye care within Queensland and identify key factors that affect optometry involvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods approach comprised three parts. A) Survey of optometrists working in Queensland asking for their opinion on collaborative eye care. B) Interviews with optometrists working in public hospitals in Queensland. C) Responses from both the survey and interviews were deductively coded to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify barriers and enablers to collaborative eye care. The survey included 21 Likert-scaled questions and 9 free-text questions. Structured interviews asked questions about working in a collaborative eye care environment, transcripts were downloaded and checked for accuracy. Key TDF domains were mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify potential intervention functions to support collaborative eye care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey responses were received from 41 optometrists and 10 interviews were conducted. The Likert section of the questionnaire demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.837) and response variation to individual questions (Friedman Chi-Square = 233, <i>p</i> = 0.001). Key enablers included optometrists having strong professional networks, effective communication pathways, high confidence in clinical skills and proximity to specialist care. Collaboration was constrained by inadequate referral pathways, lack of recognition of the role of optometrists and inadequate remuneration. Identified intervention strategies include enhancing capability through mentorship, restructuring environments to include shared information platforms, appropriate renumeration, and professional development opportunities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Critical enablers and barriers to collaborative eye care amongst Queensland optometrists were identified. Addressing the lack of infrastructure, professional recognition, and financial incentives could strengthen collaborative practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":10214,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2025.2560968","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical relevance: Collaborative eye care, where the skills of health professionals are utilised to their maximum capability, enhances patient outcomes. Optometrists are highly skilled eye care practitioners and yet their involvement in collaborative care is relatively limited.

Background: The aim was to understand the barriers and enablers to optometrists working in collaborative eye care within Queensland and identify key factors that affect optometry involvement.

Methods: A mixed-methods approach comprised three parts. A) Survey of optometrists working in Queensland asking for their opinion on collaborative eye care. B) Interviews with optometrists working in public hospitals in Queensland. C) Responses from both the survey and interviews were deductively coded to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify barriers and enablers to collaborative eye care. The survey included 21 Likert-scaled questions and 9 free-text questions. Structured interviews asked questions about working in a collaborative eye care environment, transcripts were downloaded and checked for accuracy. Key TDF domains were mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify potential intervention functions to support collaborative eye care.

Results: Survey responses were received from 41 optometrists and 10 interviews were conducted. The Likert section of the questionnaire demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.837) and response variation to individual questions (Friedman Chi-Square = 233, p = 0.001). Key enablers included optometrists having strong professional networks, effective communication pathways, high confidence in clinical skills and proximity to specialist care. Collaboration was constrained by inadequate referral pathways, lack of recognition of the role of optometrists and inadequate remuneration. Identified intervention strategies include enhancing capability through mentorship, restructuring environments to include shared information platforms, appropriate renumeration, and professional development opportunities.

Conclusion: Critical enablers and barriers to collaborative eye care amongst Queensland optometrists were identified. Addressing the lack of infrastructure, professional recognition, and financial incentives could strengthen collaborative practices.

了解澳大利亚昆士兰州协作眼保健的障碍和促进因素。
临床相关性:协作眼保健,其中卫生专业人员的技能得到最大限度的利用,提高了患者的治疗效果。验光师是高度熟练的眼科保健从业人员,但他们参与合作护理相对有限。背景:目的是了解昆士兰验光师从事协同眼保健工作的障碍和促进因素,并确定影响验光工作的关键因素。方法:混合方法包括三个部分。A)对在昆士兰工作的验光师进行调查,询问他们对合作眼保健的意见。B)采访在昆士兰公立医院工作的验光师。C)调查和访谈的回答被演绎编码到理论领域框架(TDF)中,以确定协作眼保健的障碍和促进因素。调查包括21个李克特量表问题和9个自由文本问题。结构化访谈询问了有关在协作眼保健环境中工作的问题,并下载了记录并检查了准确性。将关键的TDF域映射到能力、机会、动机-行为(COM-B)模型和行为改变轮(BCW)中,以确定支持协作眼保健的潜在干预功能。结果:共收到41名验光师的问卷调查和10次访谈。问卷的Likert部分显示出很强的内部一致性(Cronbach's alpha = 0.837)和对个别问题的响应变异(Friedman Chi-Square = 233, p = 0.001)。关键的促成因素包括验光师拥有强大的专业网络、有效的沟通途径、对临床技能的高度信心以及接近专家护理。由于转诊途径不足、对验光师的作用缺乏认识以及报酬不足,合作受到限制。已确定的干预策略包括通过师徒关系提高能力、重组环境以包括共享信息平台、适当的薪酬和专业发展机会。结论:确定了昆士兰验光师之间协作眼保健的关键促成因素和障碍。解决基础设施、专业认可和财政激励的缺乏可以加强合作实践。
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
4.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Optometry is a peer reviewed journal listed by ISI and abstracted by PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Citation Index and Current Contents. It publishes original research papers and reviews in clinical optometry and vision science. Debate and discussion of controversial scientific and clinical issues is encouraged and letters to the Editor and short communications expressing points of view on matters within the Journal''s areas of interest are welcome. The Journal is published six times annually.
×
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