↓ Skip to main content

Task shifting in primary eye care: how sensitive and specific are common signs and symptoms to predict conditions requiring referral to specialist eye personnel?

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Task shifting in primary eye care: how sensitive and specific are common signs and symptoms to predict conditions requiring referral to specialist eye personnel?
Published in
Human Resources for Health, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-12-s1-s3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hery Harimanitra Andriamanjato, Wanjiku Mathenge, Khumbo Kalua, Paul Courtright, Susan Lewallen

Abstract

The inclusion of primary eye care (PEC) in the scope of services provided by general primary health care (PHC) workers is a 'task shifting' strategy to help increase access to eye care in Africa. PEC training, in theory, teaches PHC workers to recognize specific symptoms and signs and to treat or refer according to these. We tested the sensitivity of these symptoms and signs at identifying significant eye pathology. Specialized eye care personnel in three African countries evaluated specific symptoms and signs, using a torch alone, in patients who presented to eye clinics. Following this, they conducted a more thorough examination necessary to make a definite diagnosis and manage the patient. The sensitivities and specificities of the symptoms and signs for identifying eyes with conditions requiring referral or threatening sight were calculated. Sensitivities of individual symptoms and signs to detect sight threatening pathology ranged from 6.0% to 55.1%; specificities ranged from 8.6 to 98.9. Using a combination of symptoms or signs increased the sensitivity to 80.8 but specificity was 53.2. In this study, the sensitivity and specificity of commonly used symptoms and signs were too low to be useful in guiding PHC workers to accurately identify and refer patients with eye complaints. This raises the question of whether this task shifting strategy is likely to contribute to reducing visual loss or to providing an acceptable quality service.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 32%
Other 6 18%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 21%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Linguistics 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2014.
All research outputs
#3,273,463
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#392
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,536
of 241,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#9
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.