Eye health: what research is needed, and where?

Research is key to our efforts to improve eye health and has been highlighted in recent global policies. Two of the five recommendations outlined in the World Health Organization’s World Report on Vision focused on strengthening the quantity and quality of evidence available

Interventions to promote access to eye care for non-Indigenous, non-dominant ethnic groups in high-income countries: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: For many people, settling in a new country is associated with a new identity as an 'ethnic minority', one that can remain through future generations. People who are culturally distinct from the dominant population group may experience a variety of barriers to accessing healthcare, including linguistic and cultural barriers in communication, navigation of an unfamiliar health system and unconscious or overt discrimination. Here, we outline the protocol of a scoping review to identify, describe and summarise interventions aimed at improving access to eye care for non-Indigenous, non-dominant ethnic groups residing in high-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health from their inception to July 2019. We will include studies of any design that describe an intervention to promote access to eye care for non-Indigenous, non-dominant ethnic groups. Two authors will independently review titles, abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Reference lists from all included articles will also be searched. In cases of disagreement between initial reviewers, a third author will help resolve the conflict. For each included article, we will extract data about the target population, details of the intervention delivered and the effectiveness of or feedback from the intervention. Overall findings will be summarised with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will summarise existing literature and as such ethics approval is not required. We will publish the review in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal, and draft appropriate summaries for dissemination to the wider community. This wider community could include clinicians, policymakers, health service managers and organisations that work with non-dominant ethnic groups. Our findings will also feed into the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health

Identification and critical appraisal of evidence for interventions for refractive error to support the development of the WHO package of eye care interventions: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

PURPOSE: The World Health Organization is developing a Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) to support the integration of eye health care into national health programmes. Interventions included in the PECI should be based on robust evidence where available. Refractive error is a leading cause of blindness and vision impairment and is a PECI priority condition. The aim of this study was to provide high-quality evidence to support the development of the PECI by identifying and critically appraising clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and extracting recommendations for refractive error interventions. METHODS: We searched for CPGs on refractive error published in the last 10 years. We conducted the searches initially in February and March 2019 and repeated them in March 2020. We evaluated the quality of potentially relevant guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. RESULTS: We identified 12 high-quality CPGs relevant to refractive error, written by six organisations from three high-income countries. Organisations used a variety of frameworks to assess the strength of recommendations based on available evidence, with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) being most common. Vision screening for children aged 3 to 5 years was recommended consistently. Evidence for screening and eye evaluations at other ages was weaker, although ophthalmic professional organisations consistently recommended regular evaluations. Recommendations on optical and laser correction of refractive error were limited and did not consider implications for low resource settings. Interventions for slowing myopia progression in children were recommended, but these will need regular updating as new evidence emerges. CONCLUSIONS: Current high-quality guidelines on refractive error have been formulated in high-income countries. Recommendations focused on prevention and treatment of refractive error in low-and middle-income countries are lacking. Regular updating of systematic reviews and CPGs is essential to ensure that robust evidence is promptly appraised and incorporated into recommendations for eye health care practitioners

Eye health and quality of life: an umbrella review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Vision impairment and eye disease are major global health concerns and have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and lower quality of life. Quality of life, whether generic, vision-specific or disease-specific, is an important measure of the impact of eye health on people's daily activities, well-being and visual function, and is increasingly used to evaluate the impact of ophthalmic interventions and new devices. While many studies and reviews have examined the relationship between vision or eye health and quality of life across different contexts, there has yet to be a synthesis of the impact of vision impairment, eye disease and ophthalmic interventions on quality of life globally and across the lifespan. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An umbrella review of systematic reviews will be conducted to address these two questions: (1) What is the association of vision impairment and eye disease with quality of life? (2) What is the impact of ophthalmic interventions on quality of life? A search of related literature will be performed on the 11 February 2020 in Medline Ovid, Embase.com, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and the grey literature, and repeated at the synthesis stage. Title/abstract and full-text screening, methodological quality assessment and data extraction will be conducted by reviewers working independently and in duplicate. Assessment of methodological quality and data extraction will be performed using Joanna Briggs Institute standard forms. Findings from the systematic reviews and their methodological quality will be summarised qualitatively in the text and using tables. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required. Results of this umbrella review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and summarised in the Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework Registries (https://osf.io/qhv9g/)

Are we advancing universal health coverage through cataract services? Protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Universal health coverage (UHC) includes the dimensions of equity in access, quality services that improve health and protection against financial hardship. Cataract continues to be the leading cause of blindness globally, despite cataract surgery being an efficacious intervention. The aim of this scoping review is to map the nature, extent and global distribution of data on cataract services for UHC in terms of equity, access, quality and financial protection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The search will be constructed by an Information Specialist and undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health databases. We will include all published non-interventional primary research studies and systematic reviews that report a quantitative assessment of access, equity, quality or financial protection of cataract surgical services for adults at the subnational, national, regional or global level from population-based surveys or routinely collected health service data since 1 January 2000 and published through to February 2020.Screening and data charting will be undertaken using Covidence systematic review software. Titles and abstracts of identified studies will be screened by two authors independently. Full-text articles of potentially relevant studies will be obtained and reviewed independently by two authors against the inclusion criteria. Any discrepancies between the authors will be resolved by discussion, and with a third author as necessary. A data charting form will be developed and piloted on three studies by three authors and amendments made as necessary. Data will be extracted by two reviewers independently and summarised narratively and using maps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not sought as the scoping review will only use published and publicly accessible data. The review will be published in an open access peer-reviewed journal. A summary of the results will be developed for website posting, stakeholder meetings and inclusion in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health

The economics of vision impairment and its leading causes: A systematic review

Vision impairment (VI) can have wide ranging economic impact on individuals, households, and health systems. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and summarise the costs associated with VI and its major causes. We searched MEDLINE (16 November 2019), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment database (12 December 2019) for partial or full economic evaluation studies, published between 1 January 2000 and the search dates, reporting cost data for participants with VI due to an unspecified cause or one of the seven leading causes globally: cataract, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, corneal opacity, trachoma. The search was repeated on 20 January 2022 to identify studies published since our initial search. Included studies were quality appraised using the British Medical Journal Checklist for economic submissions adapted for cost of illness studies. Results were synthesized in a structured narrative. Of the 138 included studies, 38 reported cost estimates for VI due to an unspecified cause and 100 reported costs for one of the leading causes. These 138 studies provided 155 regional cost estimates. Fourteen studies reported global data; 103/155 (66%) regional estimates were from high-income countries. Costs were most commonly reported using a societal (n = 48) or healthcare system perspective (n = 25). Most studies included only a limited number of cost components. Large variations in methodology and reporting across studies meant cost estimates varied considerably. The average quality assessment score was 78% (range 35–100%); the most common weaknesses were the lack of sensitivity analysis and insufficient disaggregation of costs. There was substantial variation across studies in average treatment costs per patient for most conditions, including refractive error correction (range $12–$201 ppp), cataract surgery (range $54–$3654 ppp), glaucoma (range $351–$1354 ppp) and AMD (range $2209–$7524 ppp). Future cost estimates of the economic burden of VI and its major causes will be improved by the development and adoption of a reference case for eye health. This could then be used in regular studies, particularly in countries with data gaps, including low- and middle-income countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Oceania, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa

Associations between vision impairment and driving and the effectiveness of vision-related interventions : protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction Driving is one of the main modes of transport with safe driving requiring a combination of visual, cognitive and physical skills. With population ageing, the number of people living with vision impairment is set to increase in the decades ahead. Vision impairment may negatively impact an individual's ability to safely drive. The association between vision impairment and motor vehicle crash involvement or driving participation has yet to be systematically investigated. Further, the evidence for the effectiveness of vision-related interventions aimed at decreasing crashes and driving errors has not been synthesised. Methods and analysis A search will be conducted for relevant studies on Medline (Ovid), EMBASE and Global Health from their inception to March 2020 without date or geographical restrictions. Two investigators will independently screen abstracts and full texts using Covidence software with conflicts resolved by a third investigator. Data extraction will be conducted on all included studies, and their quality assessed to determine the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Outcome measures include crash risk, driving cessation and surrogate measures of driving safety (eg, driving errors and performance). The results of this review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline. Meta-analysis will be undertaken for outcomes with sufficient data and reported following the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. Where statistical pooling is not feasible or appropriate, narrative summaries will be presented following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis in systematic reviews guideline. Ethics and dissemination This review will only report on published data thus no ethics approval is required. Results will be included in the Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health, published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020172153

Prevalence and impact of combined vision and hearing (dual sensory) impairment : a scoping review

Funding: MJB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (207472/Z/17/Z). JR's appointment at the University of Auckland is funded by the Buchanan Charitable Foundation, New Zealand. TB is funded by Christian Blind Mission (CBM International). The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health is supported by The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity [grant number GR001061], NIHR 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. CGBJ is supported by an NHMRC Fellowship (GNT 1142897) and a WA Future Health Research and Innovation Fund Fellowship.Hearing and vision impairments are common globally. They are often considered separately in research, and in planning and delivering services. However, they can occur concurrently, termed dual sensory impairment (DSI). The prevalence and impact of hearing and vision impairment have been well-examined, but there has been much less consideration of DSI. The aim of this scoping review was to determine the nature and extent of the evidence on prevalence and impact of DSI. Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health (April 2022). We included primary studies and systematic reviews reporting the prevalence or impact of DSI. No limits were placed on age, publication dates, or country. Only studies where the full text was available in English were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstract, full texts. Data were charted by two reviewers independently using a pre-piloted form. The review identified 183 reports of 153 unique primary studies and 14 review articles. Most evidence came from high-income countries (86% of reports). Prevalence varied across reports, as did age groups of participants and definitions used. The prevalence of DSI increased with age. Impact was examined across three broad groups of outcomes-psychosocial, participation, and physical health. There was a strong trend towards poorer outcomes for people with DSI across all categories compared to people with one or neither impairment, including activities of daily living (worse for people with DSI in 78% of reports) and depression (68%). This scoping review highlights that DSI is a relatively common condition with substantial impact, particularly among older adults. There is a gap in evidence from low and middle-income countries. There is a pressing need for a consensus position on the definition(s) of DSI and standardisation of reporting age groups to enable reliable estimates to be ascertained and compared and responsive services developed.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe