Grand Challenges in global eye health : a global prioritisation process using Delphi method

Funding Information: The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health is supported by The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity (grant number GR001061), National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, the Seva Foundation, and British Council for the Prevention of Blindness and Christian Blind Mission. MJB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (207472/Z/17/Z). JR's position at the University of Auckland is funded by the Buchanan Charitable Foundation, New Zealand. Funding Information: The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health is supported by The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity (grant number GR001061), National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, the Seva Foundation, and British Council for the Prevention of Blindness and Christian Blind Mission. MJB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (207472/Z/17/Z). JR's position at the University of Auckland is funded by the Buchanan Charitable Foundation, New Zealand. Editorial note: the Lancet Group takes a neutral position with respect to territorial claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations. Methods: Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists. Findings: Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity. Interpretation: This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenges. Funding: The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity, National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The Seva Foundation, British Council for the Prevention of Blindness, and Christian Blind Mission. Translations: For the French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Arabic and Persian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Grand Challenges in global eye health: a global prioritisation process using Delphi method

Background: We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations. Methods: Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists. Findings: Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity. Interpretation: This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenges. Funding: The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity, National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The Seva Foundation, British Council for the Prevention of Blindness, and Christian Blind Mission. Translations: For the French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Arabic and Persian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Rate of Shattercane × Sorghum Hybridization In Situ

Cultivated sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench subsp. bicolor] can interbreed with a feral weedy relative shattercane [S. bicolor nothosubsp. drummondii (Steud.) de Wet ex Davidse]. Traits introduced from cultivated sorghum could contribute to the invasiveness of a shattercane population. An experiment was conducted to determine the potential for pollenmediated gene flow from grain sorghum to shattercane. Shattercane with juicy midrib (dd) was planted in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] fields during 2 yr in concentric arcs at varying distances from a 0.39 ha sorghum pollen source with dry midrib (DD). The arcs were placed so that prevailing winds would carry sorghum pollen to the shattercane. Seven hundred twenty seeds from each of over 300 shattercane panicles in anthesis during sorghum pollen shed each year were collected. Progeny were evaluated by phenotype to determine rate of hybridization. Hybridization averaged 3.6% within the source in 2008 and 16.0% in 2009 and declined as distance increased. Hybridization as high as 2.6% for an individual panicle was measured at the farthest distance evaluated (200 m). Wind direction and speed were also measured and their product affected hybridization rate for all pollination periods. Results indicate that genes from cultivated sorghum will likely be introduced into shattercane populations at distances of at least 200 m and that rate of hybridization is dependent on weather factors such as wind. Source size is also important in determining hybridization rate but was not studied here