↓ Skip to main content

Eye Care Quality and Accessibility Improvement in the Community (EQUALITY) for adults at risk for glaucoma: study rationale and design

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 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
Eye Care Quality and Accessibility Improvement in the Community (EQUALITY) for adults at risk for glaucoma: study rationale and design
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0213-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cynthia Owsley, Lindsay A. Rhodes, Gerald McGwin, Stephen T. Mennemeyer, Mary Bregantini, Nita Patel, Demond M. Wiley, Frank LaRussa, Dan Box, Jinan Saaddine, John E. Crews, Christopher A. Girkin

Abstract

Primary open angle glaucoma is a chronic, progressive eye disease that is the leading cause of blindness among African Americans. Glaucoma progresses more rapidly and appears about 10 years earlier in African Americans as compared to whites. African Americans are also less likely to receive comprehensive eye care when glaucoma could be detected before irreversible blindness. Screening and follow-up protocols for managing glaucoma recommended by eye-care professional organizations are often not followed by primary eye-care providers, both ophthalmologists and optometrists. There is a pressing need to improve both the accessibility and quality of glaucoma care for African Americans. Telemedicine may be an effective solution for improving management and diagnosis of glaucoma because it depends on ocular imaging and tests that can be electronically transmitted to remote reading centers where tertiary care specialists can examine the results. We describe the Eye Care Quality and Accessibility Improvement in the Community project (EQUALITY), set to evaluate a teleglaucoma program deployed in retail-based primary eye care practices serving communities with a large percentage of African Americans. We conducted an observational, 1-year prospective study based in two Walmart Vision Centers in Alabama staffed by primary care optometrists. EQUALITY focuses on new or existing adult patients who are at-risk for glaucoma or already diagnosed with glaucoma. Patients receive dilated comprehensive examinations and diagnostic testing for glaucoma, followed by the optometrist's diagnosis and a preliminary management plan. Results are transmitted to a glaucoma reading center where ophthalmologists who completed fellowship training in glaucoma review results and provide feedback to the optometrist, who manages the care of the patient. Patients also receive eye health education about glaucoma and comprehensive eye care. Research questions include diagnostic and management agreement between providers, the impact of eye health education on patients' knowledge and adherence to follow-up and medication, patient satisfaction, program cost-effectiveness, and EQUALITY's impact on Walmart pharmacy prescription rates. As eye-care delivery systems in the US strive to improve quality while reducing costs, telemedicine programs including teleglaucoma initiatives such as EQUALITY could contribute toward reaching this goal, particularly among underserved populations at-risk for chronic blinding diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 231 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 13%
Student > Bachelor 26 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Researcher 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 49 21%
Unknown 73 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 15%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Unspecified 10 4%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 81 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,929,765
of 24,554,073 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,236
of 2,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,573
of 396,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#31
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,554,073 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,122 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 396,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.