Efficiency was the quality element most often assessed (n=58, 41%) followed by people-centredness (n=40, 28%), while integration (n=4) and timeliness (n=3) were infrequently reported, and no study reported outcomes related to planetary health.Įvidence on interventions to improve quality of cataract services shows unequal regional distribution. Most of the 143 included studies were undertaken in high-income countries (n=93, 65%) Twenty-nine intervention groups were identified, most commonly pre-operative education (n=17, 12%) and pain/anxiety management (n=16, 11%). Studies were grouped thematically and results synthesised narratively. Screening of titles/abstracts, full-text review and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. We included studies that reported quality-relevant interventions and excluded studies focused on technical aspects of surgery or that only involved children (less than 18 years). On 17 November 2019 we searched MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health for manuscripts published since 1990, without language or geographic restrictions. We used the dimensions of quality adopted by WHO-effectiveness, safety, people-centredness, timeliness, equity, integration and efficiency-to which we added planetary health. This scoping review aims to summarise the nature and extent of published literature on interventions to improve the quality of services for age-related cataract globally. Cataract surgery is one of the most frequently performed operations worldwide, but good quality services are not universally available. We believe this list can inform the development of new national eye health monitoring frameworks, monitor progress on key challenges to eye health and be considered in broader UHC monitoring indices at national and international levels.Ĭataract is a leading cause of blindness and vision impairment globally. The menu consists of 22 indicators, including 7 core indicators, that represent important concepts in eye health for 2020 and beyond, and are considered feasible, actionable, reliable and internationally comparable. The top 30 indicators ranked by these two parameters were then used as the basis for the steering group to develop a final menu. The highest-ranked 95 were presented in Round 2 and were (1) scored against four criteria (feasible, actionable, reliable and internationally comparable) and (2) ranked according to their suitability as a ‘core’ indicator for collection by all countries. Two-hundred indicators were presented in Round 1 and participants prioritised each on a 4-point Likert scale. We recruited a panel of 72 global eye health experts (40% women) to participate in a two-round, online prioritisation exercise. We reviewed the literature to create a long-list of indicators aligned to the conceptual framework for monitoring outlined in WHO’s World Report on Vision. This project sought to develop a consensus among eye health experts from all world regions to produce a menu of indicators for countries to monitor eye health within UHC. In its recent World Report on Vision, the WHO called for an updated approach to monitor eye health as part of universal health coverage (UHC).

Health net eye coverage