Search

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

IMPORTANCE: Despite persistent inequalities in access to eye care services globally, guidance on a set of recommended, evidence-based eye care interventions to support country health care planning has not been available. To overcome this barrier, the World Health Organization (WHO) Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) has been developed. OBJECTIVE: To describe the key outcomes of the PECI development. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A standardized stepwise approach that included the following stages: (1) selection of priority eye conditions by an expert panel after reviewing epidemiological evidence and health facility data; (2) identification of interventions and related evidence for the selected eye conditions from a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs); stage 2 included a systematic literature search, screening of title and abstracts (excluding articles that were not relevant CPGs), full-text review to assess disclosure of conflicts of interest and affiliations, quality appraisal, and data extraction; (3) expert review of the evidence extracted in stage 2, identification of missed interventions, and agreement on the inclusion of essential interventions suitable for implementation in low- and middle-income resource settings; and (4) peer review. FINDINGS: Fifteen priority eye conditions were chosen. The literature search identified 3601 articles. Of these, 469 passed title and abstract screening, 151 passed full-text screening, 98 passed quality appraisal, and 87 were selected for data extraction. Little evidence (≤1 CPG identified) was available for pterygium, keratoconus, congenital eyelid disorders, vision rehabilitation, myopic macular degeneration, ptosis, entropion, and ectropion. In stage 3, domain-specific expert groups voted to include 135 interventions (57%) of a potential 235 interventions collated from stage 2. After synthesis across all interventions and eye conditions, 64 interventions (13 health promotion and education, 6 screening and prev

Undergoing general anaesthetic and complex surgery is associated with significant risk. Compounding this, reduced muscle mass is proven to be linked to increased post-operative complications and increased length of stay. Exercise focused prehabilitation research is emergent and increasingly supportive of preventive strategies to improve post-surgical outcomes. PURPOSE To investigate the role of a multi-site strength focussed exercise intervention in improving patient condition prior to surgery to enhance recovery METHODS 43 (26 male, 17 females; 68.3 ± 9.3 years) patients scheduled for surgery were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups; 1) prehabilitation [pre-surgery exercise] 2) prehabilitation + rehabilitation [pre and post-surgery exercise] or 3) usual care. The exercise program consisted of an aerobic component and 6 resistance exercises targeting the major muscle groups. Primary outcomes were length of stay (days) and post-operative complications. Secondary measures included; whole body resistance, muscular strength, aerobic fitness, physical function and quality of life. RESULTS There was no difference in length of stay between groups (prehab: 11.2±10.3; pre+rehab: 13.2±6.2; control: 13.9±12.4). Post-operative complications were not different between groups. A significant time*group interaction was observed for isometric grip strength (p=0.046). Patients reported significantly greater quality of recovery in the prehab+rehab exercise group compared to control (p=0.05). No differences were observed between groups for whole body resistance, aerobic fitness, measures of physical function or self-reported quality of life. CONCLUSION The preliminary results of this study indicate resistance-based exercise training prior to and following surgery results in greater muscular strength and enhanced quality of recovery compared to current standard care practices. These findings provide promising support for the development of future strength focused prehabilitation progra

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background Global and regional prevalence estimates for blindness and vision impairment are important for the development of public health policies. We aimed to provide global estimates, trends, and projections of global blindness and vision impairment. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based datasets relevant to global vision impairment and blindness that were published between 1980 and 2015. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate the prevalence (by age, country, and sex), in 2015, of mild visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 to 6/18 inclusive), moderate to severe visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18 to 3/60 inclusive), blindness (presenting visual acuity worse than 3/60), and functional presbyopia (defined as presenting near vision worse than N6 or N8 at 40 cm when best-corrected distance visual acuity was better than 6/12). Findings Globally, of the 7·33 billion people alive in 2015, an estimated 36·0 million (80% uncertainty interval [UI] 12·9–65·4) were blind (crude prevalence 0·48%; 80% UI 0·17–0·87; 56% female), 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5–359·1) people had moderate to severe visual impairment (2·95%, 80% UI 1·34–4·89; 55% female), and 188·5 million (80% UI 64·5–350·2) had mild visual impairment (2·57%, 80% UI 0·88–4·77; 54% female). Functional presbyopia affected an estimated 1094·7 million (80% UI 581·1–1686·5) people aged 35 years and older, with 666·7 million (80% UI 364·9–997·6) being aged 50 years or older. The estimated number of blind people increased by 17·6%, from 30·6 million (80% UI 9·9–57·3) in 1990 to 36·0 million (80% UI 12·9–65·4) in 2015. This change was attributable to three factors, namely an increase because of population growth (38·4%), population ageing after accounting for population growth (34·6%), and reduction in age-specific prevalence (−36·7%). T