Table 2 Patient evaluations of Indigenous eye care services
Author (year) | Country | Intervention | Response Rate (%) | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Jin (2004) [31] | Canada | Mobile diabetes care service (including DR screening) | 96 | • 95% would reuse service • 95% would recommend service to others • 93% ranked service as more convenient than comparator |
FNQLHSSC (2013) [26] | Canada | DR screening in local primary health care clinics | 69 | • 98% would reuse service • 98% very satisfied/satisfied with service • 92% found the use of local staff for the service acceptable • Reported benefits of service included proximity (85%), improved understanding of diabetes and DR (58%), use of entrusted local staff, service quality, and appointment flexibility |
Kanagasingam (2015) [28] | Australia | DR screening in local primary health care clinics | 17 | • Mean satisfaction score of 9.7/10 • 20% of written feedback expressed appreciation of avoided travel |
Stanimirovic (2019) [35] | Canada | DR screening in local primary health care clinics | - | • 92% rated service as excellent • 8% rated service as good • Reasons for not being screened prior to service: lack of awareness of DR (72%), cost (24%), or travel (4%) |
Kumar (2006) [36] | Australia | General teleophthalmology service | 41 | • 98% would reuse service • 98% satisfied with service • 93% found service allowed quicker access to eye care • 88% had no privacy concerns with service • 74% not concerned about lack of direct contact with ophthalmologist • Complaints: small workspace, delayed ophthalmology advice, not as comprehensive as comparator |