Objectives To describe research into non‐clinical support eye health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) Australians, the people who provide such care, and its impact on eye health outcomes. Study design Systematic review and qualitative analysis of peer‐reviewed research publications. Data sources Peer‐reviewed research articles published between January 2000 and July 2018 and included in MEDLINE/EMBASE, Web of Science, Informit, EBSCO (CINAHL and Anthropology Plus), or ProQuest Central. Study selection We included English language, peer‐reviewed articles reporting empirical data on non‐clinical support for eye health for Indigenous Australians. Two authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of 1678 unique articles for inclusion in a full text review; the full texts of 104 publications were reviewed, of which 77 were excluded and 27 included in our qualitative analysis. Data synthesis Qualitative analysis identified five key areas of non‐clinical support for Indigenous eye health: coordination of eye care, integrating and linking services, cultural support, health promotion, and social and emotional support. People who provide non‐clinical support include eye health coordinators, Aboriginal Health Workers, primary care clinicians, family members, carers, and community‐based liaison workers. The availability of non‐clinical support is associated with increased patient attendance at eye care services, higher visual acuity examination and cataract surgery rates, broader eye health knowledge, and greater cultural responsivity. Conclusion Non‐clinical support is critical for facilitating attendance at appointments by patients and ensuring that preventive, primary, and tertiary eye care services are accessible to Indigenous Australians. Greater financial investment is needed to support key providers of non‐clinical support, especially eye health coordinators, community‐based liaison officers, and family members and carers.

Background/aimTo determine willingness to pay for children’s spectacles, and barriers to purchasing children’s spectacles in Cambodia.MethodsWe conducted vision screenings, and eye examinations as indicated, for all consenting children at 21 randomly selected secondary schools. We invited parents/guardians of children found to have refractive problems to complete a willingness to pay for spectacles survey, using a binary-with-follow-up technique.ResultsWe conducted vision screenings on 12 128 secondary schoolchildren, and willingness to pay for spectacles surveys with 491 parents/guardians (n=491) from Kandal and Phnom Penh provinces in Cambodia. We found 519 children with refractive error, 7 who had pre-existing spectacles and 14 recommended spectacles for lower ametropias. About half (53.2%; 95% CI 44.0% to 62.1%) of parents/guardians were willing to pay KHR70 000 (US$17.5; average market price) or more for spectacles. Mean willingness-to-pay price was KHR74 595 (US$18.6; 95% CI KHR64 505 to 86 262; 95% CI US$16.1 to US$21.6) in Phnom Penh and KHR55 651 (US$13.9; 95% CI KHR48 021 to 64 494; 95% CI US$12.0 to US$16.1) in Kandal province. Logistic regression suggested parents/guardians with college education (OR 6.8; p<0.001), higher household incomes (OR 8.0; p=0.006) and those wearing spectacles (OR 2.2; p=0.01) were more likely to be willing to pay ≥US$17.5. The most common reasons for being unwilling to pay US$17.5 were related to cost (58.8%). The most common barrier to spectacle wear was fear that spectacles weaken children’s eyes (36.0%).ConclusionsWith almost half of parents/guardians unwilling to pay for spectacles at the current average market price, financial support through a subsidised spectacle scheme might be required for children to access spectacles in Cambodia.

No abstract

Objective: Optometrists are increasingly adopting teleoptometry as an approach to delivering eye care. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created further opportunities for optometrists to utilize innovation in telehealth to deliver eye care to individuals who experience access barriers. A systematic literature review is presented detailing the evidence to support the use of teleoptometry. Methods: Databases of MEDLINE, Global Health, and Web of Science were searched, and articles were included if they reported any involvement of optometrists in the delivery of telehealth. Findings were reported according to the mode of telehealth used to deliver eye care, telehealth collaboration type, and the format and geographical areas where eye care via telehealth is being delivered. Results: Twenty-seven relevant studies were identified. Only 11 studies included the role of optometrists as a member of the telehealth team where the scope of practice extended beyond creating and receiving referrals, collecting clinical data at in-person services, and continuing in-person care following consultation with an ophthalmologist. Both synchronous and asynchronous telehealth services were commonly utilized. Optometrists were most commonly involved in ophthalmology-led telehealth collaborations ( n = 19). Eight studies reported optometrists independently delivering primary eye care via telehealth, and commonly included videoconferencing. Conclusion: The application of teleoptometry to deliver eye care is rapidly emerging, and appears to be a viable adjunct to the delivery of in-person optometry services. The review highlighted the scarcity of evidence surrounding the clinical benefits, safety, and outcomes of teleoptometry. Further research is required in this area.

From multiple studies conducted through the FCDO AT2030 Programme, as well as key literature, we examine whether Assistive Technology (AT) provision models could look towards more sustainable approaches, and by doing this benefit not only the environment, but also address the problems that the current provision systems have. We show the intrinsic links between disability inclusion and the climate crisis, and the particular vulnerability people with disabilities face in its wake. In particular, we discuss how localised circular models of production could be beneficial, facilitating context driven solutions and much needed service elements such as repair and maintenance. Key discussion areas include systems approaches, digital fabrication, repair and reuse, and material recovery. Finally, we look at what needs be done in order to enable these approaches to be implemented. In conclusion, we find that there are distinct parallels between what AT provision models require to improve equitable reliable access, and strategies that could reduce environmental impact and bring economic benefit to local communities. This could allow future AT ecosystems to be key demonstrators of circular models, however further exploration of these ideas is required to make sense of the correct next steps. What is key in all respects, moving forward, is aligning AT provision with sustainability interventions.