↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of a novel mobile health education intervention (Peek) on spectacle wear among children in India: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of a novel mobile health education intervention (Peek) on spectacle wear among children in India: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-1888-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Priya Morjaria, Andrew Bastawrous, Gudlavalleti Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Jennifer Evans, Clare Gilbert

Abstract

Uncorrected refractive errors are the commonest cause of visual loss in children despite spectacle correction being highly cost-effective. Many affected children do not benefit from correction as a high proportion do not wear their spectacles. Reasons for non-wear include parental attitudes, overprescribing and children being teased/bullied. Most school programmes do not provide health education for affected children, their peers, teachers or parents. The Portable Eye Examination Kit (Peek) will be used in this study. Peek has applications for measuring visual acuity with software for data entry and sending automated messages to inform providers and parents. Peek also has an application which simulates the visual blur of uncorrected refractive error (SightSim). The hypothesis is that higher proportion of children with uncorrected refractive errors in schools allocated to the Peek educational package will wear their spectacles 3-4 months after they are dispensed, and a higher proportion of children identified with other eye conditions will access services, compared with schools receiving standard school screening. Cluster randomized, double-masked trial of children with and without uncorrected refractive errors or other eye conditions. Government schools in Hyderabad, India will be allocated to intervention (Peek) or comparator (standard programme) arms before vision screening. In the intervention arm Peek will be used for vision screening, SightSim images will be used in classroom teaching and will be taken home by children, and voice messages will be sent to parents of children requiring spectacles or referral. In both arms the same criteria for recruitment, prescribing and dispensing spectacles will be used. After 3-4 months children dispensed spectacles will be followed up to assess spectacle wear, and uptake of referrals will be ascertained. The cost of developing and delivering the Peek package will be assessed. The cost per child wearing their spectacles or accessing services will be compared. Educating parents, teachers and children about refractive errors and the importance of wearing spectacles has the potential to increase spectacle wear amongst children. Innovative, potentially scalable mobile technology (Peek) will be used to screen, provide health education, track spectacle wear and adherence to follow-up amongst children referred. Controlled-Trials.com, ISRCTN78134921 . Registered on 29 June 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 16 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 October 2017.
All research outputs
#9,097,204
of 11,857,470 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,196
of 2,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,568
of 272,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#46
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,857,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 272,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.