Charitable Platforms in Global Surgery: A Systematic Review of their Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, Sustainability, and Role Training

Objective: This study was designed to propose a classification scheme for platforms of surgical delivery in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to review the literature documenting their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and role in training. Approximately 28 % of the global burden of disease is surgical. In LMICs, much of this burden is borne by a rapidly growing international charitable sector, in fragmented platforms ranging from short-term trips to specialized hospitals. Systematic reviews of these platforms, across regions and across disease conditions, have not been performed. Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed from 1960 to 2013. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined a priori. Bibliographies of retrieved studies were searched by hand. Of the 8,854 publications retrieved, 104 were included. Results: Surgery by international charitable organizations is delivered under two, specialized hospitals and temporary platforms. Among the latter, short-term surgical missions were the most common and appeared beneficial when no other option was available. Compared to other platforms, however, worse results and a lack of cost-effectiveness curtailed their role. Self-contained temporary platforms that did not rely on local infrastructure showed promise, based on very few studies. Specialized hospitals provided effective treatment and appeared sustainable; cost-effectiveness evidence was limited. Conclusions: Because the charitable sector delivers surgery in vastly divergent ways, systematic review of these platforms has been difficult. This paper provides a framework from which to study these platforms for surgery in LMICs. Given the available evidence, self-contained temporary platforms and specialized surgical centers appear to provide more effective and cost-effective care than short-term surgical mission trips, except when no other delivery platform exists

Use of Cooking Fuels and Cataract in a Population-Based Study: The India Eye Disease Study.

BACKGROUND: Biomass cooking fuels are commonly used in Indian households, especially by the poorest socioeconomic groups. Cataract is highly prevalent in India and the major cause of vision loss. The evidence on biomass fuels and cataract is limited. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association of biomass cooking fuels with cataract and type of cataract. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study in north and south India using randomly sampled clusters to identify people ≥ 60 years old. Participants were interviewed and asked about cooking fuel use, socioeconomic and lifestyle factors and attended hospital for digital lens imaging (graded using the Lens Opacity Classification System III), anthropometry, and blood collection. Years of use of biomass fuels were estimated and transformed to a standardized normal distribution. RESULTS: Of the 7,518 people sampled, 94% were interviewed and 83% of these attended the hospital. Sex modified the association between years of biomass fuel use and cataract; the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for a 1-SD increase in years of biomass fuel use and nuclear cataract was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.23) for men and 1.28 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.48) for women, p interaction = 0.07. Kerosene use was low (10%). Among women, kerosene use was associated with nuclear (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.04, 2.97) and posterior subcapsular cataract (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.10, 2.64). There was no association among men. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide robust evidence for the association of biomass fuels with cataract for women but not for men. Our finding for kerosene and cataract among women is novel and requires confirmation in other studies. Citation: Ravilla TD, Gupta S, Ravindran RD, Vashist P, Krishnan T, Maraini G, Chakravarthy U, Fletcher AE. 2016. Use of cooking fuels and cataract in a population-based study: the India Eye Disease Study. Environ Health Perspect 124:1857-1862; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP193

Investigation of the Accuracy of a Low-Cost, Portable Autorefractor to Provide Well-Tolerated Eyeglass Prescriptions: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Purpose: To compare patient preferences for eyeglasses prescribed using a low-cost, portable wavefront autorefractor versus standard subjective refraction (SR). Design: Randomized, cross-over clinical trial. Participants: Patients aged 18 to 40 years presenting with refractive errors (REs) to a tertiary eye hospital in Southern India. Methods: Participants underwent SR followed by autorefraction (AR) using the monocular version of the QuickSee device (PlenOptika Inc). An independent optician, masked to the refraction approach, prepared eyeglasses based on each refraction approach. Participants (masked to refraction source) were randomly assigned to use SR- or AR-based eyeglasses first, followed by the other pair, for 1 week each. At the end of each week, participants had their vision checked and were interviewed about their experience with the eyeglasses. Main Outcome Measures: Patients preferring eyeglasses were chosen using AR and SR. Results: The 400 participants enrolled between March 26, 2018, and August 2, 2019, had a mean (standard deviation) age of 28.4 (6.6) years, and 68.8% were women. There was a strong correlation between spherical equivalents using SR and AR (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) with a mean difference of −0.07 diopters (D) (95% limits of agreement [LoA], −0.68 to 0.83). Of the 301 patients (75.2%) who completed both follow-up visits, 50.5% (n = 152) and 49.5% (n = 149) preferred glasses prescribed using SR and AR, respectively (95% CI, 45.7–56.3; P = 0.86). There were no differences in demographic or vision characteristics between participants with different preferences (P > 0.05 for all). Conclusions: We observed a strong agreement between the prescriptions from SR and AR, and eyeglasses prescribed using SR and AR were equally preferred by patients. Wider use of prescribing based on AR alone in resource-limited settings is supported by these finding

The economic and social costs of visual impairment and blindness in India

Purpose: To provide a current estimate of the economic and social costs (or welfare costs) of visual impairment and blindness in India. Methods: Using evidence from the recently conducted Blindness and Visual Impairment Survey across India, the Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health and other sources, we developed an economic model that estimates the costs of reduced employment, elevated mortality risk, education loss for children, productivity loss in employment, welfare loss for the unemployed, and caregiver costs associated with moderate and severe visual impairment (MSVI) and blindness. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted by varying key parameters simultaneously. Results: The costs of MSVI and blindness in India in 2019 are estimated at INR 1,158 billion (range: INR 947–1,427 billion) or $54.4 billion at purchasing power parity exchange rates (range:$44.5–67.0 billion), accounting for all six cost streams. The largest cost was for the loss of employment, whereas the the second largest cost was for caregiver time. A more conservative estimate focusing only on employment loss and elevated mortality risk yielded a cost of INR 504 billion (range: INR 348–621 billion) or $23.7 billion (range:$16.3–29.2 billion). Conclusion: Poor eye health imposes a non‑trivial recurring cost to the Indian economy equivalent to 0.47% to 0.70% of GDP in the primary scenario, a substantial constraint on the country’s growth aspirations. Furthermore, the absolute costs of poor eye health will increase over time as India ages and becomes wealthier unless further progress is made in reducing the prevalence of MSVI and blindness

Strategies for cataract and uncorrected refractive error case finding in India: Costs and cost-effectiveness at scale

Background: India has the largest number of individuals suffering from visual impairment and blindness in the world. Recent surveys indicate that demand-based factors prevent more than 80% of people from seeking appropriate eye services, suggesting the need to scale up cost-effective case finding strategies. We assessed total costs and cost-effectiveness of multiple strategies to identify and encourage people to initiate corrective eye services. Methods: Using administrative and financial data from six Indian eye health providers, we conduct a retrospective micro-costing analysis of five case finding interventions that covered 1·4 million people served at primary eye care facilities (vision centers), 330,000 children screened at school, 310,000 people screened at eye camps and 290,000 people screened via door-to-door campaigns over one year. For four interventions, we estimate total provider costs, provider costs attributable to case finding and treatment initiation for uncorrected refractive error (URE) and cataracts, and the societal cost per DALY averted. We also estimate provider costs of deploying teleophthalmology capability within vision centers. Point estimates were calculated from provided data with confidence intervals determined by varying parameters probabilistically across 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Findings: Case finding and treatment initiation costs are lowest for eye camps (URE: $8·0 per case, 95$13·7 per case, 95% CI: 5·6–27·0) and vision centers (URE: $10·8 per case, 95$11·9 per case, 95% CI: 8·8–15·9). Door-to-door screening is as cost-effective for identifying and encouraging surgery for cataracts albeit with large uncertainty ($11·3 per case, 95$25·8 per case, 95% CI: 24·1 to 30·7). School screening has the highest case finding and treatment initiation costs for URE ($29·3 per case, 95$11,707 (95% CI: 8,722–15,492). Adding teleophthalmology capability increases annualized costs by $1,271 per facility (95$143 per DALY (95% CI: 93–251). Vision centers have an ICER of $262 per DALY (95% CI: 175–431) and were able to reach substantially more patients than any other strategy. Interpretation: Policy makers are expected to consider cost-effective case finding strategies when budgeting for eye health in India. Screening camps and vision centers are the most cost-effective strategies for identifying and encouraging individuals to undertake corrective eye services, with vision centers likely to be most cost-effective at greater scale. Investment in eye health continues to be very cost-effective in India

Announcing The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health

Description to be added.Cannot be left empt

Is the 2015 eye care service delivery profile in Southeast Asia closer to universal eye health need!

Purpose: The year 2015 status of eye care service profile in Southeast Asia countries was compared with year 2010 data to determine the state of preparedness to achieve the World Health Organization global action plan 2019. Methods: Information was collected from the International Agency for Prevention of Blindness country chairs and from the recent PubMed referenced articles. The data included the following: blindness and low vision prevalence, national eye health policy, eye health expenses, presence of international non-governmental organizations, density of eye health personnel, and the cataract surgical rate and coverage. The last two key parameters were compared with year 2010 data. Results: Ten of 11 country chairs shared the information, and 28 PubMed referenced publications were assessed. The prevalence of blindness was lowest in Bhutan and highest in Timor-Leste. Cataract surgical rate was high in India and Sri Lanka. Cataract surgical coverage was high in Thailand and Sri Lanka. Despite increase in number of ophthalmologists in all countries (except Timor-Leste), the ratio of the population was adequate (1:100,000) only in 4 of 10 countries (Bhutan, India, Maldives and Thailand), but this did not benefit much due to unequal urban-rural divide. Conclusion: The midterm assessment suggests that all countries must design the current programs to effectively address both current and emerging causes of blindness. Capacity building and proportionate distribution of human resources for adequate rural reach along with poverty alleviation could be the keys to achieve the universal eye health by 2019. Keywords: Eye care delivery; Southeast Asia; Universal eye health

Keeping an eye on eye care: monitoring progress towards effective coverage

The eye care sector is well positioned to contribute to the advancement of universal health coverage within countries. Given the large unmet need for care associated with cataract and refractive error, coupled with the fact that highly cost-effective interventions exist, we propose that effective cataract surgery coverage (eCSC) and effective refractive error coverage (eREC) serve as ideal indicators to track progress in the uptake and quality of eye care services at the global level, and to monitor progress towards universal health coverage in general. Global targets for 2030 for these two indicators were endorsed by WHO Member States at the 74th World Health Assembly in May, 2021. To develop consensus on the data requirements and methods of calculating eCSC and eREC, WHO convened a series of expert consultations to make recommendations for standardising the definitions and measurement approaches for eCSC and eREC and to identify areas in which future work is required

Effective cataract surgical coverage in adults aged 50 years and older: estimates from population-based surveys in 55 countries.

BACKGROUND: Cataract is the leading cause of blindness globally. Effective cataract surgical coverage (eCSC) measures the number of people in a population who have been operated on for cataract, and had a good outcome, as a proportion of all people operated on or requiring surgery. Therefore, eCSC describes service access (ie, cataract surgical coverage, [CSC]) adjusted for quality. The 74th World Health Assembly endorsed a global target for eCSC of a 30-percentage point increase by 2030. To enable monitoring of progress towards this target, we analysed Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB) survey data to establish baseline estimates of eCSC and CSC. METHODS: In this secondary analysis, we used data from 148 RAAB surveys undertaken in 55 countries (2003-21) to calculate eCSC, CSC, and the relative quality gap (% difference between eCSC and CSC). Eligible studies were any version of the RAAB survey conducted since 2000 with individual participant survey data and census population data for people aged 50 years or older in the sampling area and permission from the study's principal investigator for use of data. We compared median eCSC between WHO regions and World Bank income strata and calculated the pooled risk difference and risk ratio comparing eCSC in men and women. FINDINGS: Country eCSC estimates ranged from 3·8% (95% CI 2·1-5·5) in Guinea Bissau, 2010, to 70·3% (95% CI 65·8-74·9) in Hungary, 2015, and the relative quality gap from 10·8% (CSC: 65·7%, eCSC: 58·6%) in Argentina, 2013, to 73·4% (CSC: 14·3%, eCSC: 3·8%) in Guinea Bissau, 2010. Median eCSC was highest among high-income countries (60·5% [IQR 55·6-65·4]; n=2 surveys; 2011-15) and lowest among low-income countries (14·8%; [IQR 8·3-20·7]; n=14 surveys; 2005-21). eCSC was higher in men than women (148 studies pooled risk difference 3·2% [95% CI 2·3-4·1] and pooled risk ratio of 1·20 [95% CI 1·15-1·25]). INTERPRETATION: eCSC varies widely between countries, increases with greater income level, and is higher in men. In pursuit of 2030 targets, many countries, particularly in lower-resource settings, should emphasise quality improvement before increasing access to surgery. Equity must be embedded in efforts to improve access to surgery, with a focus on underserved groups. FUNDING: Indigo Trust, Peek Vision, and Wellcome Trust