Background Diabetic retinopathy (DR) can lead to visual impairment and blindness if not detected and treated in time. Knowing the barriers/enablers in advance in contrasting different country income settings may accelerate development of a successful DR screening (DRS) program. This would be especially applicable in the low-income settings with the rising prevalence of DR. Objectives The aim of this systematic review is to identify and contrast the barriers/enablers to DRS for different contexts using both consumers i.e., people with diabetes (PwDM) and provider perspectives and system level factors in different country income settings. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library from the databases start date to December 2018. We included the studies reported on barriers and enablers to access DRS services based at health care facilities. We categorised and synthesized themes related to the consumers (individuals), providers and the health systems (environment) as main dimensions according to the constructs of social cognitive theory, supported by the quantitative measures i.e., odds ratios as reported by each of the study authors. Main results We included 77 studies primarily describing the barriers and enablers. Most of the studies were from high income settings (72.7%, 56/77) and cross sectional in design (76.6%, 59/77). From the perspectives of consumers, lack of knowledge, attitude, awareness and motivation were identified as major barriers. The enablers were fear of blindness, proximity of screening facility, experiences of vision loss and being concerned of eye complications. In providers’ perspectives, lack of skilled human resources, training programs, infrastructure of retinal imaging and cost of services were the main barriers. Higher odds of uptake of DRS services was observed when PwDM were provided health education (odds ratio (OR) 4.3) and having knowledge on DR (OR range 1.3–19.7). Conclusion Knowing the barriers to access DRS is a pre-requisite in development of a successful screening program. The awareness, knowledge and attitude of the consumers, availability of skilled human resources and infrastructure emerged as the major barriers to access to DRS in any income setting.
Purpose: To assess the impact of uncorrected hyperopia and hyperopic spectacle correction on children's academic performance. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Methods: We searched 9 electronic databases from inception to July 26, 2021, for studies assessing associations between hyperopia and academic performance. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or geographic location. A quality checklist was applied. Random-effects models estimated pooled effect size as a standardized mean difference (SMD) in 4 outcome domains: cognitive skills, educational performance, reading skills, and reading speed. (PROSPERO registration: CRD-42021268972). Results: Twenty-five studies (21 observational and 4 interventional) out of 3415 met the inclusion criteria. No full-scale randomized trials were identified. Meta-analyses of the 5 studies revealed a small but significant adverse effect on educational performance in uncorrected hyperopic compared to emmetropic children {SMD À0.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), À0.27 to À0.09]; P < 0.001, 4 studies} and a moderate negative effect on reading skills in uncorrected hyperopic compared to emmetropic children [SMD À0.46 (95% CI, À0.90 to À0.03); P ¼ 0.036, 3 studies]. Reading skills were significantly worse in hyperopic than myopic children [SMD À0.29 (95% CI, À0.43 to À0.15); P < 0.001, 1 study]. Qualitative analysis on 10 (52.6%) of 19 studies excluded from metaanalysis found a significant (P < 0.05) association between uncorrected hyperopia and impaired academic performance. Two interventional studies found hyperopic spectacle correction significantly improved reading speed (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Evidence indicates that uncorrected hyperopia is associated with poor academic performance. Given the limitations of current methodologies, further research is needed to evaluate the impact on academic performance of providing hyperopic correction.
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.
Background Road traffic injuries are a major public health concern and their prevention requires concerted efforts. We aimed to systematically analyse the current evidence to establish whether any aspects of vision, and particularly interventions to improve vision function, are associated with traffic safety outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between poor vision and traffic safety outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library from database inception to April 2, 2020. We included any interventional or observational studies assessing whether vision is associated with traffic safety outcomes, studies describing prevalence of poor vision among drivers, and adherence to licensure regulations. We excluded studies done in high-income countries. We did a meta-analysis to explore the associations between vision function and traffic safety outcomes and a narrative synthesis to describe the prevalence of vision disorders and adherence to licensure requirements. We used random-effects models with residual maximum likelihood method. The systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD-42020180505. Findings We identified 49 (1•8%) eligible articles of 2653 assessed and included 29 (59•2%) in the various data syntheses. 15 394 participants (mean sample size n=530 [SD 824]; mean age of 39•3 years [SD 9•65]; 1167 [7•6%] of 15 279 female) were included. The prevalence of vision impairment among road users ranged from 1•2% to 26•4% (26 studies), colour vision defects from 0•5% to 17•1% (15 studies), and visual field defects from 2•0% to 37•3% (ten studies). A substantial proportion (range 10•6-85•4%) received licences without undergoing mandatory vision testing. The meta-analysis revealed a 46% greater risk of having a road traffic crash among those with central acuity visual impairment (risk ratio [RR] 1•46 [95% CI 1•20-1•78]; p=0•0002, 13 studies) and a greater risk among those with defects in colour vision (RR 1•36 [1•01-1•82]; p=0•041, seven studies) or the visual field (RR 1•36 [1•25-1•48]; p<0•0001, seven studies). The I² value for overall statistical heterogeneity was 63•4%.Interpretation This systematic review shows a positive association between vision impairment and traffic crashes in LMICs. Our findings provide support for mandatory vision function assessment before issuing a driving licence.
Background Blindness and visual impairment from diabetic retinopathy (DR) are avoidable through early detection and timely treatment. The Western Province of Sri Lanka has the highest prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) (18.6%) in the country. A situational analysis identified a significant gap in DR screening services (DRSS) uptake in this region. Barriers that hinder people with DM (PwDM) from attending DRSS are poorly understood. The purpose of this study is to understand the factors which influence the uptake of DRSS and follow-up to inform health promotion strategies and improve the uptake of these services. Methods Eleven focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with PwDM who presented to medical, general eye and vitreoretinal services in three public sector institutions (two tertiary and one secondary level) in the Western Province between October 2016 and March 2017. We enrolled six groups (four Sinhala speaking, two Tamil) of women and five groups (three Sinhala and two Tamil) of men representing ethnicity and gender. We performed a thematic analysis and described the main themes and subthemes using the socio-ecological model as a framework. Results We identified lack of knowledge of both the condition and the need for screening as key barriers to access DRSS. Socio-cultural factors in the family environment, economic reasons and institutional factors were also important barriers. Additional reasons include long waiting time at eye clinics and poor referrals exacerbated by the lack of a systematic DRSS. In addition, attitudes to DRSS such as fear of discomfort from the procedure and the need for accompaniment following mydriasis were also deterrents to follow-up screening. Conclusion This study has shown that there are inter-related user, family, and institutional factors which affect the uptake of DRSS. Understanding how DR is conceptualised by PwDM in this region is essential to refine strategies to improve access to DRSS. Strategies to improve knowledge need to be more culturally acceptable and relevant to PwDM and their families, with increased availability of DRSS at convenient locations may increase timely uptake of screening. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s41182-019-0160-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background One major barrier to uptake of diabetic retinopathy (DR) services is lack of knowledge and awareness of DR among the people with diabetes (PwDM). Targeted health education (HE) can be a key element in improving the uptake of eye care services. Such interventions are lacking in Sri Lanka. Methods A local context specific HE intervention (HEI) was developed by adopting available resources and incorporating views from PwDM and key stakeholders. Four sessions of participatory workshops with PwDM (20 Sinhala and 13 Tamil speaking) and two stage 12 stakeholder interviews were conducted to both develop and pre-test the material. The products were a video and a leaflet, delivered at a medical clinic to a sample of 45 PwDM identified as having DR. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after 4 weeks, to evaluate the acceptability and comprehension of the HEI. Additionally, nine interviews were conducted with clinical providers to explore process issues related to delivery of the HEI. Data analysis was conducted using thematic analysis. Results The lack of knowledge and awareness on DR, and of the importance of regular DR screening and follow up, combined with poor information on referral pathways were key elements identified from the workshops with PwDM. The stakeholders prioritised the importance of using simple language, and the need for emphasis on improving understanding about the asymptomatic phase of DR. The overall acceptability of the HEI material was satisfactory, although there was some difficulty with interpretation of medical images. Overall, although PwDM liked the ideas of the video, the leaflet was seen as a more practical option, given the busy clinic environment. The key issue was both formats required interaction with the provider, in order to support understanding of the messages. Conclusions The process of adapting HE material is not simply translation into the appropriate language. Instead, a tailored approach in a country, context and particular health services setting is needed. This study illustrates the value of using a participatory approach and involving PwDM and stakeholders in the adaptation and pilot testing of a HEI to improve uptake of screening for DR in the context of Sri Lanka. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6880-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.