Search

Abstract Background Over 80% of blindness in Kenya is due to curable or preventable causes and 7.5 m Kenyans currently need eye services. Embedding sociodemographic data collection into screening programmes could help identify the groups facing systematic barriers to care. We aimed to determine the sociodemographic characteristics that were associated with access among patients diagnosed with an eye problem and referred for treatment in the Vision Impact Programme, currently operating in Meru County. Method We used an embedded, pragmatic, cross-sectional design. A list of sociodemographic questions was developed with input from key stakeholders. The final question set included the following domains: age, gender, religion, marital status, disability, education, occupation, income, housing, assets, and health insurance. These were integrated into an app that is used to screen, refer, and check-in (register) participants within a major eye screening programme. We gathered data from 4,240 people who screened positive and were referred to their local outreach treatment clinic. We used logistic regression to identify which groups were facing the greatest barriers to accessing care. Results A quarter of those screened between April – July 2023 were found to have an eye problem and were referred, however only 46% of these people were able to access care. In our fully adjusted model, at the 0.05 level there were no statistically significant differences in the odds of attendance within the domains of disability, health insurance, housing, income, or religion. Strong evidence (p

Summary: Background: We aimed to summarise the extent and nature of published research about eye health and eye health services in Pacific Island Countries and Territories since 1980. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Global Health and Cochrane Library to identify publications about eye health and eye health services in 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories from 1 January 1980 to 26 January 2024. Study selection and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers independently. Findings: Of the 1610 publications identified, 180 were included. This research was most commonly conducted in Papua New Guinea (n = 52) or Fiji (n = 33) and focused on diabetic retinopathy (n = 29) or trachoma (n = 18), with few focused on cataract or refractive error. While eye health services research was common in the past, recent research focused on trachoma. The included research was largely undertaken and funded by people and organisations from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and the USA, though authors with Pacific affiliations is increasing. Interpretation: Few countries have up-to-date estimates of the prevalence of vision impairment or service coverage to enable evidence-informed planning. Increased effort is required to strengthen research capability to ensure research priorities in eye health are set by Pacific Peoples. Funding: The Fred Hollows Foundation New Zealand.

The Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB) is a population-based cross-sectional survey methodology used to collect data on the prevalence of vision impairment and its causes and eye care service indicators among the population 50 years and older. RAAB has been used for over 20 years with modifications to the protocol over time reflected in changing version numbers; this paper describes the latest version of the methodology–RAAB7. RAAB7 is a collaborative project between the International Centre for Eye Health and Peek Vision with guidance from a steering group of global eye health stakeholders. We have fully digitised RAAB, allowing for fast, accurate and secure data collection. A bespoke Android mobile application automatically synchronises data to a secure Amazon Web Services virtual private cloud when devices are online so users can monitor data collection in real-time. Vision is screened using Peek Vision’s digital visual acuity test for mobile devices and uncorrected, corrected and pinhole visual acuity are collected. An optional module on Disability is available. We have rebuilt the RAAB data repository as the end point of RAAB7’s digital data workflow, including a front-end website to access the past 20 years of RAAB surveys worldwide. This website (https://www.raab.world) hosts open access RAAB data to support the advocacy and research efforts of the global eye health community. Active research sub-projects are finalising three new components in 2024-2025: 1) Near vision screening to address data gaps on near vision impairment and effective refractive error coverage; 2) an optional Health Economics module to assess the affordability of eye care services and productivity losses associated with vision impairment; 3) an optional Health Systems data collection module to support RAAB’s primary aim to inform eye health service planning by supporting users to integrate eye care facility data with population data.

Introduction The global population is ageing, and by 2050, there will be almost 2.1 billion people over the age of 60 years. This ageing population means conditions such as diabetes are on the increase, as well as other conditions associated with ageing (and/or diabetes), including those that cause vision impairment, hearing impairment or foot problems. The aim of this scoping review is to identify the extent of the literature describing integration of services for adults of two or more of diabetes, eye, hearing or foot services.Methods and analysis The main database searches are of Medline and Embase, conducted by an information specialist, without language restrictions, for studies published from 1 January 2000 describing the integration of services for two or more of diabetes, eye, hearing and foot health in the private or public sector and at the primary or secondary level of care, primarily targeted to adults aged ≥40 years. A grey literature search will focus on websites of key organisations. Reference lists of all included articles will be reviewed to identify further studies. Screening and data extraction will be undertaken by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies will be resolved by discussion. We will use tables, maps and text to summarise the included studies and findings, including where studies were undertaken, which services tended to be integrated, in which sector and level of the health system, targeting which population groups and whether they were considered effective.Ethics and dissemination As our review will be based on published data, ethical approval will not be sought. This review is part of a project in Aotearoa New Zealand that aims to improve access to services for adults with diabetes or eye, hearing or foot conditions. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.

Abstract Background Health inequalities are ubiquitous, and as countries seek to expand service coverage, they are at risk of exacerbating existing inequalities unless they adopt equity-focused approaches to service delivery. Main text Our team has developed an equity-focused continuous improvement model that reconciles prioritisation of disadvantaged groups with the expansion of service coverage. Our new approach is based on the foundations of routinely collecting sociodemographic data; identifying left-behind groups; engaging with these service users to elicit barriers and potential solutions; and then rigorously testing these solutions with pragmatic, embedded trials. This paper presents the rationale for the model, a holistic overview of how the different elements fit together, and potential applications. Future work will present findings as the model is operationalised in eye-health programmes in Botswana, India, Kenya, and Nepal. Conclusion There is a real paucity of approaches for operationalising equity. By bringing a series of steps together that force programme managers to focus on groups that are being left behind, we present a model that can be used in any service delivery setting to build equity into routine practice.

Introduction Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of vision impairment globally. Vision loss from diabetic retinopathy can generally be prevented by early detection and timely treatment. The WHO included a measure of service access for diabetic retinopathy as a core indicator in the Eye Care Indicator Menu launched in 2022: retina screening coverage for people with diabetes. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive global and regional summary of the available information on retina screening coverage for people with diabetes.Methods and analysis A search will be conducted in five databases without language restrictions for studies from any country reporting retina screening coverage for adults with any type of diabetes at the national or subnational level using data collected since 1 January 2000 until the search date. We will also seek reports and coverage statistics from government websites of all WHO member states. Two investigators will independently screen studies, extract relevant data and assess risk of bias of included studies. The results of the review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline. We will summarise the range of coverage definitions reported across included studies and present the median retina screening coverage in WHO regions and by World Bank country income level. Depending on the availability of data, we will conduct meta-analysis to assess disparities in retina screening coverage for people with diabetes by factors in the PROGRESS framework (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status and Social capital).Ethics and dissemination This review will only include published data thus no ethical approval will be sought. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.Protocol registration number OSF registration 17/10/2023: https://osf.io/k5p69.

Background: The advancement of universal health coverage (UHC) is largely based on identifying and addressing barriers to accessing community health services. Traditional qualitative research approaches provide excellent insights but have unfeasibly high resource requirements for most care providers. Aim: To identify, categorise, and evaluate methods that have been used to identify barriers to and/or solutions for improving access to community-based health services, grounded in engagement with affected communities, excluding approaches that take >14 days. Design & setting: This was a scoping review. Method: Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines, a search was undertaken using the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Global Health, and Google Scholar. An information specialist designed the search, and dual independent review and data charting were used. Results: In total, 44 studies were included from 30 countries, reporting on 18 different clinical services. Thirty studies used self-described ‘rapid’ approaches; however, the majority of these did not justify what they meant by this term. Nearly half of the studies used mixed- or multi-methods and triangulation to verify early findings. All of the qualitative studies used interviews and/or focus groups, which were often supplemented with observations, document review, and mapping activities. The use of in situ snowball and convenience sampling; community members as data collectors and cultural guides; collaborative summarisation (review of findings with community members and end-users); and deductive framework analysis expedited the research processes. There were no data on costs. Conclusion: There are a wide range of methods that can be used to deliver timely information about barriers to access. The methods employed in the articles reviewed tended to use traditional data collection approaches in innovative ways.

Abstract Background Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. Methods We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. Discussion Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Objectives To systematically investigate the associations between vision impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash (MVC) involvement, and evaluate vision-related interventions to reduce MVCs.Design Medline (Ovid), EMBASE and Global Health electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2022 for observational and interventional English-language studies. Screening, data extraction and appraisals using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools were completed by two reviewers independently. Where appropriate, measures of association were converted into risk ratios (RRs) or ORs for meta-analysis.Participants Drivers of four-wheeled vehicles of all ages with no cognitive declines.Primary and secondary outcomes MVC involvement (primary) and driving cessation (secondary).Results 101 studies (n=778 052) were included after full-text review. 57 studies only involved older drivers (≥65 years) and 85 were in high-income settings. Heterogeneity in the data meant that most meta-analyses were underpowered as only 25 studies, further split into different groups of eye diseases and measures of vision, could be meta-analysed. The limited evidence from the meta-analyses suggests that visual field defects (four studies; RR 1.51 (95% CI 1.23, 1.85); p

Objectives Low attendance rates for community health services reflect important barriers that prevent people from receiving the care they need. Services and health systems that seek to advance Universal Health Coverage need to understand and act on these factors. Formal qualitative research is the best way to elicit barriers and identify potential solutions, however traditional approaches take months to complete and can be very expensive. We aim to map the methods that have been used to rapidly elicit barriers to accessing community health services and identify potential solutions.Methods and analysis We will search MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Global Health for empirical studies that use rapid methods (

Objective Monitoring health outcomes disaggregated by socioeconomic position (SEP) is crucial to ensure no one is left behind in efforts to achieve universal health coverage. In eye health planning, rapid population surveys are most commonly implemented; these need an SEP measure that is feasible to collect within the constraints of a streamlined examination protocol. We aimed to assess whether each of four SEP measures identified inequality—an underserved group or socioeconomic gradient—in key eye health outcomes.Design Population-based cross-sectional survey.Participants A subset of 4020 adults 50 years and older from a nationally representative sample of 9188 adults aged 35 years and older in The Gambia.Outcome measures Blindness (presenting visual acuity (PVA)

ObjectiveTo assess diabetes eye service use in New Zealand among people aged ≥15 years by estimating service attendance, biennial screening rate, and disparities in the use of screening and treatment services.MethodsWe obtained Ministry of Health data from the National Non-Admitted Patient Collection on diabetes eye service events between 1 July 2006 and 31 December 2019 and sociodemographic and mortality data from the Virtual Diabetes Register and linked these using a unique patient identifier (encrypted National Health Index). We 1) summarized attendance at retinal screening and ophthalmology services, 2) calculated biennial and triennial screening rate, 3) summarized treatment with laser and anti-VEGF and used log-binomial regression to examine associations of all of these with age group, ethnicity, and area-level deprivation.ResultsIn total, 245,844 people aged ≥15 years had at least one diabetes eye service appointment attended or scheduled; half of these (n = 125,821, 51.2%) attended only retinal screening, one-sixth attended only ophthalmology (n = 35,883, 14.6%) and one-third attended both (n = 78,300, 31.8%). The biennial retinal screening rate was 62.1%, with large regional variation (73.9% in Southern District to 29.2% in West Coast). Compared with NZ Europeans, Māori were approximately twice as likely to never receive diabetes eye care or to access ophthalmology when referred from retinal screening, 9% relatively less likely to receive biennial screening and received the fewest anti-VEGF injections when treatment was commenced. Disparities in service access were also present for Pacific Peoples compared to NZ Europeans, younger and older age groups compared to those aged 50-59 years and those living in areas with higher deprivation.ConclusionsAccess to diabetes eye care is suboptimal, with substantial disparity between age groups, ethnicity groups, area level deprivation quintile and across districts. Efforts to improve access to and quality of diabetes eye care services must include strengthening data collection and monitoring.

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.

Vision loss from cataract is unequally distributed, and there is very little evidence on how to overcome this inequity. This project aimed to engage multiple stakeholder groups to identify and prioritise (1) delivery strategies that improve access to cataract services for under-served groups and (2) population groups to target with these strategies across world regions. We recruited panellists knowledgeable about cataract services from eight world regions to complete a two-round online modified Delphi process. In Round 1, panellists answered open-ended questions about strategies to improve access to screening and surgery for cataract, and which population groups to target with these strategies. In Round 2, panellists ranked the strategies and groups to arrive at the final lists regionally and globally. 183 people completed both rounds (46% women). In total, 22 distinct population groups were identified. At the global level the priority groups for improving access to cataract services were people in rural/remote areas, with low socioeconomic status and low social support. South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa were the only regions in which panellists ranked women in the top 5 priority groups. Panellists identified 16 and 19 discreet strategies to improve access to screening and surgical services, respectively. These mostly addressed health system/supply side factors, including policy, human resources, financing and service delivery. We believe these results can serve eye health decision-makers, researchers and funders as a starting point for coordinated action to improve access to cataract services, particularly among population groups who have historically been left behind.

Introduction: This systematic review aims to (1) investigate the associations between vision impairment and driving performance, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of vision-related interventions to improve driving performance. Method: Medline (Ovid), EMBASE and Global Health electronic databases were searched from their inception to March 2022 for observational and interventional English-language studies. The population of focus were licensed drivers of all ages of four-wheeled motorised vehicles. The primary outcome was measures of driving performance from naturalistic driving and/or on-road closed circuits. All screening, data extraction and critical appraisals were completed independently by two authors. Results: 27 studies (n = 6358 participants) from the 4281 identified in the search were included in this review. All but one study, an RCT, were observational. Only 2 cross-sectional studies were rated as high risk of bias. The majority of papers (80 %) were limited to older drivers. There were 33 different performance measures reported. Poor driving performance was associated with glaucoma, AMD and monocularity, and measures of vision function including contrast sensitivity, visual acuity and visual fields. From the vision-related interventions identified only cataract surgery and toric refractive correction for astigmatism were shown to improve driving performance on selected measures. Conclusion: Despite differences in outcome measures, there is consistent evidence for associations between vision impairments and poor driving performance. This review highlights the importance vision has on an individual’s ability to safely drive and complete common manoeuvres. Early detection and management of eye conditions may help decrease the likelihood of crashing and road traffic injuries.

Abstract Background Diabetic retinopathy is the most common ocular complication of diabetes and a cause of vision loss in adults. Diabetic retinopathy screening leading to early identification of the disease followed by timely treatment, can prevent vision loss in people living with diabetes. A key barrier to the implementation of screening services in low- and middle-income countries is the low number of ophthalmologists per million population. Interventions that shift screening to non-ophthalmology cadres have been implemented in programmes in low- and middle-income countries and are routinely used in high-income countries. The aim of this rapid review is to summarise the published literature reporting the effectiveness of task-shifting interventions for the detection of diabetic retinopathy by non-ophthalmologists in low- and middle-income countries. Methods We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Register of Studies for studies reporting task-shifting interventions for diabetic retinopathy detection. The review will include studies published in the last 10 years in the English language. We will include any interventional or observational comparative study measuring outcomes in terms of participation or access to diabetic retinopathy detection services (uptake) and quality of diabetic retinopathy detection services (detection, severity, diagnostic accuracy). For included studies, cost-effectiveness of the task-shifting intervention will also be presented. Two reviewers will screen search results independently. The risk of bias assessment and data extraction will be carried out by one reviewer with verification of 10% of the papers by a second reviewer. The results will be synthesised narratively. Discussion Differences in health systems organization, structure and resources will determine the need and success of task-shifting interventions for DR screening. The review will examine how these interventions have been used and/or tested in LMICs. The results will be of interest to policy makers and programme managers tasked with designing and implementing services to prevent and manage diabetes and its complications in similar settings. Systematic review registration OSF: https://osf.io/dfhg6/ .

Abstract Background Vision loss due to diabetic retinopathy can largely be prevented or delayed through treatment. Patients with vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy are typically offered laser or intravitreal injections which often require more than one treatment cycle. However, treatment is not always initiated, or it is not completed, resulting in poor visual outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving the uptake or completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy can potentially help prevent or delay visual loss in people with diabetes. Methods We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Register of Studies for studies reporting interventions to improve the uptake of treatment for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and/or diabetic macular oedema (DMO), compared with usual care, in adults with diabetes. The review will include studies published in the last 20 years in the English language. We will include any study design that measured any of the following outcomes in relation to treatment uptake and completion for DR and/or DMO: (1) proportion of patients initiating treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (2) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (3) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those initiating treatment and (4) number and proportion of DR and/or DMO rounds of treatment completed per patient, as dictated by the treatment protocol. For included studies, we will also report any measures of cost-effectiveness when available. Two reviewers will screen search results independently. Risk of bias assessment will be done by two reviewers, and data extraction will be done by one reviewer with verification of 10% of the papers by a second reviewer. The results will be synthesised narratively. Discussion This rapid review aims to identify and synthesise the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for DR and/or DMO in LMICs. The rapid review methodology was chosen in order to rapidly synthesise the available evidence to support programme implementers and policy-makers in designing evidence-based health programmes and public health policy and inform the allocation of resources. Systematic review registration OSF osf.io/h5wgr

Introduction Health inequities are defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health between groups within a population. Most health research is conducted through observational studies, which are able to offer real-world insights about etiology, healthcare policy/programme effectiveness and the impacts of socioeconomic factors. However, most published reports of observational studies do not address how their findings relate to health equity. Our team seeks to develop equity-relevant reporting guidance as an extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. This scoping review will inform the development of candidate items for the STROBE-Equity extension. We will operationalise equity-seeking populations using the PROGRESS-Plus framework of sociodemographic factors. As part of a parallel stream of the STROBE-Equity project, the relevance of candidate guideline items to Indigenous research will be led by Indigenous coinvestigators on the team.Methods and analysis We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute method for conducting scoping reviews. We will evaluate the extent to which the identified guidance supports or refutes our preliminary candidate items for reporting equity in observational studies. These candidate items were developed based on items from equity-reporting guidelines for randomised trials and systematic reviews, developed by members of this team. We will consult with our knowledge users, patients/public partners and Indigenous research steering committee to invite suggestions for relevant guidance documents and interpretation of findings. If the identified guidance suggests the need for additional candidate items, they will be developed through inductive thematic analysis.Ethics and dissemination We will follow a principled approach that promotes ethical codevelopment with our community partners, based on principles of cultural safety, authentic partnerships, addressing colonial structures in knowledge production and the shared ownership, interpretation, and dissemination of research. All products of this research will be published as open access.

Introduction Gathering data on socioeconomic status (SES) is a prerequisite for any health programme that aims to assess and improve the equitable distribution of its outcomes. Many different modalities can be used to collect SES data, ranging from (1) face-to-face elicitation, to (2) telephone-administered questionnaires, to (3) automated text message-based systems. The relative costs and perceived benefits to patients and providers of these different data collection approaches is unknown. This protocol is for a systematic review that aims to compare the resource requirements, performance characteristics, and acceptability to participants and service providers of these three approaches to collect SES data from those enrolled in health programmes.Methods and analysis An information specialist will conduct searches on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and OpenGrey. All databases will be searched from 1999 to present with no language limits used. We will also search Google Scholar and check the reference lists of relevant articles for further potentially eligible studies. Any empirical study design will be eligible if it compares two or more modalities to elicit SES data from the following three; in-person, voice call, or automated phone-based systems. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles; and complete data extraction. For each study, we will extract data on the modality characteristics, primary outcomes (response rate and equivalence) and secondary outcomes (time, costs and acceptability to patients and providers). We will synthesise findings thematically without meta-analysis.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required, as our review will include published and publicly accessible data. This review is part of a project to improve equitable access to eye care services in low-ioncome and middle-income countries. However, the findings will be useful to policy-makers and programme managers in a range of health settings and non-health settings. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop an accessible summary of results for website posting and stakeholder meetings.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021251959.

Summary: 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.

Abstract Background People living with diabetes can reduce their risk of vision loss from diabetic retinopathy by attending screening, which enables early detection and timely treatment. The aim of this pilot trial was to assess the feasibility of a full-scale cluster randomized controlled trial of an intervention to increase uptake of retinal examination in this population, as delivered within existing community-based diabetes support groups (DSGs). Methods All 16 DSGs in Kirinyaga county were invited to participate in the study. The first two groups recruited took part in the pilot trial. DSG members who met the eligibility criteria were recruited before the groups that were randomized to the two arms. In the intervention group, two peer educators were trained to deliver monthly DSG-based eye health education and individual telephone reminders to attend screening. The control group continued with usual DSG practice which is monthly meetings without eye health education. The recruitment team and outcome assessors were masked to the allocation. We documented the study processes to ascertain the feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness of the intervention. Feasibility was assessed in terms of clarity of study procedures, recruitment and retention rates, level of acceptability, and rates of uptake of eye examination. We set the target feasibility criteria for continuation to the main study to be recruitment of 50 participants in the trial, 80% monthly follow-up rates for individuals, and no attrition of clusters. Results Of the 122 DSG members who were assessed for eligibility, 104 were recruited and followed up: 51 (intervention) and 53 (control) arm. The study procedures were well understood and easy to apply. We learnt the DSG meeting days were the best opportunities for recruitment. The study had a high acceptance rate (100% for clusters, 95% for participants) and high follow-up and retention rate (100% of those recruited). All clusters and participants were analysed. We observed that the rate of incidence of eye exam was about 6 times higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm. No adverse unexpected events were reported in either arm. Conclusions The study is feasible and acceptable in the study population. The results support the development of a full-scale cluster RCT, as the success criteria for the pilot were met. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201707002430195 Registered on 25 July 2017.

Abstract Background There is limited evidence on how implementation of peer support interventions influences effectiveness, particularly for individuals with diabetes. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of a peer-led health education package versus usual care to increase uptake of screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR). Methods Our process evaluation used a mixed-method design to investigate the recruitment and retention, reach, dose, fidelity, acceptability, and context of implementation, and was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We reviewed trial documents, conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 10) and conducted four focus group discussions with participants in both arms of the trial. Three analysts undertook CFIR theory-driven content analysis of the qualitative data. Quantitative data was analyzed to provide descriptive statistics relevant to the objectives of the process evaluation. Results The trial had positive implementation outcomes, 100% retention of clusters and 96% retention for participants, 83% adherence to delivery of content of group talks (fidelity), and 78% attendance (reach) to at least 50% (3/6) of the group talks (dose). The data revealed that intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics, and process (all the constructs of CFIR) influenced the implementation. There were more facilitators than barriers to the implementation. Facilitators included the relative advantage of the intervention compared with current practice (intervention characteristics); awareness of the growing prioritization of diabetes in the national health policy framework (outer setting); tension for change due to the realization of the vulnerability to vision loss from DR (inner setting); a strong collective sense of accountability of peer supporters to implement the intervention (individual characteristics); and regular feedback on the progress with implementation (process). Potential barriers included the need to queue at the eye clinic (intervention characteristic), travel inconveniences (inner setting), and socio-political disruption (outer setting). Conclusions The intervention was implemented with high retention, reach, fidelity, and dose. The CFIR provided a valuable framework for evaluating contextual factors that influenced implementation and helped to understand what adaptations may be needed during scale up. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trials Registry: PACTR201707002430195 registered 15 July 2017

Summary: 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.

Two national surveys of vision impairment and blindness were undertaken in The Gambia in 1986 and 1996. These provided data for the inception of The Gambia’s National Eye Health Programme (NEHP) within the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. There have been important developments in the eye health services provided by the NEHP in the last 20 years. At the same time, the population has also undergone major demographic changes that may have led to substantial changes in the burden of eye disease. We conducted a National Eye Health Survey of vision impairment, blindness and its comorbidities in adults in The Gambia in 2019. We examined a nationally representative population-based sample of adults 35 years and above to permit direct comparison with the data available from the previous surveys. Alongside a comprehensive vision and eye examination, the survey provides nationally representative data on important comorbidities in this population: diabetes, hypertension, obesity, hearing impairment, disability and mental health. Secondly, it estimates access to assistive technologies and eye health services. Thirdly, it is powered to allow a five-year follow up cohort study to measure the incidence and progression of eye disease.

Purpose People who are distinct from the dominant ethnic group within a country can experience a variety of barriers to accessing eyecare services. We conducted a scoping review to map published interventions aimed at improving access to eyecare for non-Indigenous, non-dominant ethnic groups residing in high-income countries.Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health for studies that described an intervention to promote access to eyecare for the target population. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts followed by review of the full text of potentially relevant sources. For included studies, data extraction was carried out independently by two authors. Findings were summarised using a combination of descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.Results We screened 5220 titles/abstracts, of which 82 reports describing 67 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the USA (90%), attempted to improve access for Black (48%) or Latinx (28%) communities at-risk for diabetic retinopathy (42%) and glaucoma (18%). Only 30% included the target population in the design of the intervention; those that did tended to be larger, collaborative initiatives, which addressed both patient and provider components of access. Forty-eight studies (72%) evaluated whether an intervention changed an outcome measure. Among these, attendance at a follow-up eye examination after screening was the most common (n=20/48, 42%), and directly supporting patients to overcome barriers to attendance was reported as the most effective approach. Building relationships between patients and providers, running coordinated, longitudinal initiatives and supporting reduction of root causes for inequity (education and economic) were key themes highlighted for success.Conclusion Although research evaluating interventions for non-dominant, non-Indigenous ethnic groups exist, key gaps remain. In particular, the paucity of relevant studies outside the USA needs to be addressed, and target communities need to be involved in the design and implementation of interventions more frequently.

Introduction In Aotearoa New Zealand, Māori and Pacific people experience worse health outcomes compared with other New Zealanders. No population-based eye health survey has been conducted, and eye health services do not generate routine monitoring reports, so the extent of eye health inequality is unknown. This information is required to plan equitable eye health services. Here we outline the protocol for a scoping review to report the nature and extent of the evidence reporting vision impairment, and the use of eye health services by ethnicity in New Zealand.Methods and analysis An information specialist will conduct searches on MEDLINE and Embase, with no limit on publication dates or language. We will search the grey literature via websites of relevant government and service provider agencies. Reference lists of included articles will be screened. Observational studies will be included if they report the prevalence of vision impairment, or any of the main causes (cataract, uncorrected refractive error, macular degeneration, glaucoma or diabetic retinopathy) or report the use of eye health services in New Zealand among people of any age. Two authors will independently review titles, abstracts and full-text articles, and complete data extraction. Overall findings will be summarised using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, with an emphasis on disaggregation by ethnicity where this information is available.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has not been sought as our review will only include published and publicly accessible data. We will publish the review in an open access peer-reviewed journal. We anticipate the findings will be useful to organisations and providers in New Zealand responsible to plan and deliver eye care services, as well as stakeholders in other countries with differential access to eye care.Registration details The protocol has been registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/yw7xb).

Introduction Cochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) is an international network of individuals working to prepare, maintain and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions to treat, prevent or diagnose eye diseases or vision impairment. CEV plans to undertake a priority setting exercise to identify systematically research questions relevant to our scope, and to formally incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders to set priorities for new and updated reviews.Methods and analysis The scope of CEV is broad and our reviews include conditions that are common and have a high global disease burden, for example, cataract and dry eye disease, and conditions that are rare but have a high impact on quality of life and high individual cost such as eye cancer. We plan to focus on conditions prioritised by WHO during the development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions. These conditions were selected based on a combination of data on disease magnitude, healthcare use and expert opinion. We will identify priority review questions systematically by summarising relevant data on research in Eyes and Vision from a range of sources, and compiling a list of 10–15 potential review questions (new and/or updates) for each condition group. We will seek the views of external and internal stakeholders on this list by conducting an online survey. Equity will be a specific consideration.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. We will disseminate the findings through Cochrane channels and prepare a summary of the work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is developing a Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) to facilitate the integration of eye care into Universal Health Coverage. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for cataract in adults, to help inform PECI development. We searched academic and guideline databases, and websites of professional associations, for guidelines published between January 2010 and April 2020. Guidelines were excluded if there was commercial funding or unmanaged conflicts of interest. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. We identified 3778 reports, 35 related to cataract guidelines, four of which met the inclusion criteria (United Kingdom: 2, United States: 1, Iran: 1). The recommendations across the four guidelines covered pre-operative (43%), intra-operative (37%), and post-operative interventions (20%). Most ‘strong’ recommendations were supported by good quality evidence. Differences in recommendations across guidelines may be attributable to time of publication or regional differences in surgical practice. Few guidelines met the quality criteria, and only three countries were represented. The results of this step of the PECI development process will inform subsequent phases for development of the WHO’s package of evidence-based eye care interventions for cataract.

Background: In the absence of accessible, good quality eye health services and inclusive environments, vision loss can impact individuals, households and communities in many ways, including through increased poverty, reduced quality of life and reduced employment. We aimed to estimate the annual potential productivity losses associated with reduced employment due to blindness and moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI) at a regional and global level. Methods: We constructed a model using the most recent economic, demographic (2018) and prevalence (2020) data. Calculations were limited to the working age population (15–64 years) and presented in 2018 US Dollars purchasing power parity (ppp). Two separate models, using Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Income (GNI), were calculated to maximise comparability with previous estimates. Findings: We found that 160.7 million people with MSVI or blindness were within the working age and estimated that the overall relative reduction in employment by people with vision loss was 30.2%. Globally, using GDP we estimated that the annual cost of potential productivity losses of MSVI and blindness was $410.7 billion ppp (range $322.1 - $518.7 billion), or 0.3% of GDP. Using GNI, overall productivity losses were estimated at $408.5 billion ppp (range $320.4 - $515.9 billion), 0.5% lower than estimates using GDP. Interpretation: These findings support the view that blindness and MSVI are associated with a large economic impact worldwide. Reducing and preventing vision loss and developing and implementing strategies to help visually impaired people to find and keep employment may result in significant productivity gains 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. The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health was supported by grants from The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity (GR001061), NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, The Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The SEVA Foundation, The British Council for the Prevention of Blindness and Christian Blind Mission. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, data analysis of the study, or writing of the manuscript.

Purpose Globally, there are ~370 million Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples typically experience worse health compared with non-Indigenous people, including higher rates of avoidable vision impairment. Much of this gap in eye health can be attributed to barriers that impede access to eye care services. We conducted a scoping review to identify and summarise service delivery models designed to improve access to eye care for Indigenous peoples in high-income countries.Methods Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health in January 2019 and updated in July 2020. All study designs were eligible if they described a model of eye care service delivery aimed at populations with over 50% Indigenous peoples. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles and completed data charting. We extracted data on publication details, study context, service delivery interventions, outcomes and evaluations, engagement with Indigenous peoples and access dimensions targeted. We summarised findings descriptively following thematic analysis.Results We screened 2604 abstracts and 67 studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Studies were focused on Indigenous peoples in Australia (n=45), USA (n=11), Canada (n=7), New Zealand (n=2), Taiwan (n=1) and Greenland (n=1). The main disease focus was diabetic retinopathy (n=30, 45%), followed by ‘all eye care’ (n=16, 24%). Most studies focused on targeted interventions to increase availability of services. Fewer than one-third of studies reported involving Indigenous communities when designing the service. 41 studies reflected on whether the model improved access, but none undertook rigorous evaluation or quantitative assessment.Conclusions The geographical and clinical scope of service delivery models to improve access to eye care for Indigenous peoples in high-income countries is narrow, with most studies focused on Australia and services for diabetic retinopathy. More and better engagement with Indigenous communities is required to design and implement accessible eye care services.

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/).

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.

Introduction Due to growth and ageing of the world’s population, the number of individuals worldwide with vision impairment (VI) and blindness is projected to increase rapidly over the coming decades. VI and blindness are an important cause of years lived with disability. However, the association of VI and blindness with mortality, including the risk of bias in published studies and certainty of the evidence, has not been adequately studied in an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysis The planned systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases, including MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and Global Health, will be searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers will then screen studies and review full texts to identify studies for inclusion. Data extraction will be performed, and for included studies, the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The prognostic factor in this study is visual function, which must have been measured using a standard objective ophthalmic clinical or research instrument. We will use standard criteria from WHO to categorise VI and blindness. All-cause mortality may be assessed by any method one or more years after baseline assessment of vision. Results from included studies will be meta-analysed according to relevant sections of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.Ethics and dissemination This review will only include published data; therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The findings of this review and meta-analysis will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and will be included in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.

IntroductionIn 2015, most governments of the world committed to achieving 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) by the year 2030. Efforts to improve eye health contribute to the advancement of several SDGs, including those not exclusively health-related. This scoping review will summarise the nature and extent of the published literature that demonstrates a link between improved eye health and advancement of the SDGs.Methods and analysisSearches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health for published, peer-reviewed manuscripts, with no time period, language or geographic limits. All intervention and observational studies will be included if they report a link between a change in eye health and (1) an outcome related to one of the SDGs or (2) an element on a pathway between eye health and an SDG (eg, productivity). Two investigators will independently screen titles and abstracts, followed by full-text screening of potentially relevant articles. Reference lists of all included articles will be examined to identify further potentially relevant studies. Conflicts between the two independent investigators will be discussed and resolved with a third investigator. For included articles, data regarding publication characteristics, study details and SDG-related outcomes will be extracted. Results will be synthesised by mapping the extracted data to a logic model, which will be refined through an iterative process during data synthesis.Ethics and disseminationAs this scoping review will only include published data, ethics approval will not be sought. The findings of 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.

Abstract Objective: To compare the birth characteristics of the Growing Up in New Zealand cohort with those of all New Zealand (NZ) births over a similar time period, and to describe cohort alignment to current NZ births. Method: The Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study recruited 6,846 children from before birth via their pregnant mothers who were residing in the greater Auckland and Waikato regions during 2009 and 2010. Data were collected from mothers antenatally and six weeks after their expected delivery date, and from routine perinatal health records. These data were compared to Ministry of Health data for all births in NZ between 2007 and 2010. Results: The proportion of males and singleton births were not statistically different to national births. Compared to national births fewer of the cohort children were born low birth weight (4.9% vs. 6.1%, p

OBJECTIVE:To define and demonstrate effective cataract surgical coverage (eCSC), a candidate UHC indicator that combines a coverage measure (cataract surgical coverage, CSC) with quality (post-operative visual outcome). METHODS:All Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB) surveys with datasets on the online RAAB Repository on April 1 2016 were downloaded. The most recent study from each country was included. By country, cataract surgical outcome (CSOGood, 6/18 or better; CSOPoor, worse than 6/60), CSC (operated cataract as a proportion of operable plus operated cataract) and eCSC (operated cataract and a good outcome as a proportion of operable plus operated cataract) were calculated. The association between CSC and CSO was assessed by linear regression. Gender inequality in CSC and eCSC was calculated. FINDINGS:Datasets from 20 countries were included (2005-2013; 67,337 participants; 5,474 cataract surgeries). Median CSC was 53.7% (inter-quartile range[IQR] 46.1-66.6%), CSOGood was 58.9% (IQR 53.7-67.6%) and CSOPoor was 17.7% (IQR 11.3-21.1%). Coverage and quality of cataract surgery were moderately associated-every 1% CSC increase was associated with a 0.46% CSOGood increase and 0.28% CSOPoor decrease. Median eCSC was 36.7% (IQR 30.2-50.6%), approximately one-third lower than the median CSC. Women tended to fare worse than men, and gender inequality was slightly higher for eCSC (4.6% IQR 0.5-7.1%) than for CSC (median 2.3% IQR -1.5-11.6%). CONCLUSION:eCSC allows monitoring of quality in conjunction with coverage of cataract surgery. In the surveys analysed, on average 36.7% of people who could benefit from cataract surgery had undergone surgery and obtained a good visual outcome.

Cross-sectional blindness prevalence surveys are essential to plan and monitor eye care services. Incomplete or inaccurate reporting can prevent effective translation of research findings. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement is a 32 item checklist developed to improve reporting of observational studies. The aim of this study was to assess the completeness of reporting in blindness prevalence surveys in low and middle income countries (LMICs) using STROBE.MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched on April 8 2016 to identify cross-sectional blindness prevalence surveys undertaken in LMICs and published after STROBE was published in December 2007. The STROBE tool was applied to all included studies, and each STROBE item was categorized as 'yes' (met criteria), 'no' (did not meet criteria) or 'not applicable'. The 'Completeness of reporting (COR) score' for each manuscript was calculated: COR score = yes / [yes + no]. In journals with included studies the instructions to authors and reviewers were checked for reference to STROBE.The 89 included studies were undertaken in 32 countries and published in 37 journals. The mean COR score was 60.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58.1-63.7%; range 30.8-88.9%). The mean COR score did not differ between surveys published in journals with author instructions referring to STROBE (10/37 journals; 61.1%, 95%CI 56.4-65.8%) or in journals where STROBE was not mentioned (60.9%, 95%CI 57.4-64.3%; p = 0.93).While reporting in blindness prevalence surveys is strong in some areas, others need improvement. We recommend that more journals adopt the STROBE checklist and ensure it is used by authors and reviewers.

Background: To gain an understanding of the intersection of risk factors between the most prevalent eye health conditions that are associated with vision impairment and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Methods: A series of rapid reviews of reviews reporting on non-modifiable risk factors, age and sex, and modifiable risk factors, including social determinants, were conducted for five common eye health conditions that are the leading causes of vision impairment globally (refractive error including uncorrected refractive error, cataract, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy) and five prevalent NCDs (cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, dementia, and depressive disorders). Articles published within approximately 5 years to the end of 2019 were identified through expert recommendation, PubMED, Ovid Medline, the Lancet Global Burden of Disease series, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and World Cancer Research Fund. Results: Of 9,213 records identified, 320 records were eligible. Eye health conditions and NCDs share many risk factors. Increased age was found to be the most common shared risk factor, associated with increased risks of AMD, cataract, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, refractive error, cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia. Other shared risk factors included smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption (mixed results), and physical activity was protective, though limited evidence was found for eye conditions. Social determinants are well documented as risk factors for NCDs. Conclusion: There is substantial overlap in common established risk factors for the most frequent vision impairing eye conditions and leading NCDs. Increasing efforts should be made to integrate preventative and risk reduction interventions to improve health, with greatest shared benefits for initiatives which aim to reduce smoking, improve diet, and promote physical activity.

Background: The mitigation of unfair and avoidable differences in health is an increasing global priority. Observational studies including cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies tend to report social determinants of health which could inform evidence syntheses on health equity and social justice. However, the extent of reporting and analysis of equity in equity-relevant observational studies is unknown. Methods: We define studies which report outcomes for populations at risk of experiencing inequities as “equity-relevant”. Using a random sampling technique we will identify 320 equity-relevant observational studies published between 1 January 2020 to 27 April 2022 by searching the MEDLINE database. We will stratify sampling by 1) studies in high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) according to the World Bank classification, 2) studies focused on COVID and those which are not, 3) studies focused on populations at risk of experiencing inequities and those on general populations that stratify their analyses. We will use the PROGRESS framework which stands for place of residence, race or ethnicity, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, to identify dimensions where inequities may exist. Using a previously developed data extraction form we will pilot-test on eligible studies and revise as applicable. Conclusions: The proposed methodological assessment of reporting will allow us to systematically understand the current reporting and analysis practices for health equity in observational studies. The findings of this study will help inform the development of the equity extension for the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines.