↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to improve access to cataract surgical services and their impact on equity in low- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions to improve access to cataract surgical services and their impact on equity in low- and middle-income countries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011307.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacqueline Ramke, Jennifer Petkovic, Vivian Welch, Ilse Blignault, Clare Gilbert, Karl Blanchet, Robin Christensen, Anthony B Zwi, Peter Tugwell

Abstract

Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and the prevalence is inequitably distributed between and within countries. Interventions have been undertaken to improve cataract surgical services, however, the effectiveness of these interventions on promoting equity is not known. To assess the effects on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services for populations with cataract blindness (and visual impairment) in LMICs. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 April 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 April 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 12 April 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 12 April 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 12 April 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 12 April 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We included studies that reported on strategies to improve access to cataract services in LMICs using the following study designs: randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. Included studies were conducted in LMICs, and were targeted at disadvantaged populations, or disaggregated outcome data by 'PROGRESS-Plus' factors (Place of residence; Race/ethnicity/ culture/ language; Occupation; Gender/sex; Religion; Education; Socio-economic status; Social capital/networks. The 'Plus' component includes disability, sexual orientation and age). Two authors (JR and JP) independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed them for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible, so included studies were synthesised in table and text. From a total of 2865 studies identified in the search, two met our eligibility criteria, both of which were cluster-RCTs conducted in rural China. The way in which the trials were conducted means that the risk of bias is unclear. In both studies, villages were randomised to be either an intervention or control group. Adults identified with vision-impairing cataract, following village-based vision and eye health assessment, either received an intervention to increase uptake of cataract surgery (if their village was an intervention group), or to receive 'standard care' (if their village was a control group).One study (n = 434), randomly allocated 26 villages or townships to the intervention, which involved watching an informational video and receiving counselling about cataract and cataract surgery, while the control group were advised that they had decreased vision due to cataract and it could be treated, without being shown the video or receiving counselling. There was low-certainty evidence that providing information and counselling had no effect on uptake of referral to the hospital (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.67, 1 RCT, 434 participants) and little or no effect on the uptake of surgery (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 434 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty for both outcomes, due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.The other study (n = 355, 24 towns randomised) included three intervention arms: free surgery; free surgery plus reimbursement of transport costs; and free surgery plus free transport to and from the hospital. These were compared to the control group, which was reminded to use the "low-cost" (˜USD 38) surgical service. There was low-certainty evidence that surgical fee waiver with/without transport provision or reimbursement increased uptake of surgery (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.31, 1 RCT, 355 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.Neither of the studies reported our primary outcome of change in prevalence of cataract blindness, or other outcomes such as cataract surgical coverage, surgical outcome, or adverse effects. Neither study disaggregated outcomes by social subgroups to enable further assessment of equity effects. We sought data from both studies and obtained data from one; the information video and counselling intervention did not have a differential effect across the PROGRESS-Plus categories with available data (place of residence, gender, education level, socioeconomic status and social capital). Current evidence on the effect on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services in LMICs is limited. We identified only two studies, both conducted in rural China. Assessment of equity effects will be improved if future studies disaggregate outcomes by relevant social subgroups. To assist with assessing generalisability of findings to other settings, robust data on contextual factors are also needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 24 25%
Student > Master 20 21%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 29 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Psychology 6 6%
Other 14 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,952,641
of 12,770,714 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,726
of 10,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,105
of 315,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#138
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,770,714 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.