Dataset Information

Grand Challenges in global eye health: a global prioritisation process using Delphi method.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Ramke J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8732284 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndicators are essential instruments for monitoring and evaluating population health. The selection of a multidimensional set of indicators should not only reflect the scientific evidence on health outcomes and health determinants, but also the views of health experts and stakeholders. The aim of this study is to describe the Delphi selection process designed to promote agreement on indicators considered relevant to evaluate population health at the European regional level.MethodsIndicators were selected in a Delphi survey conducted using a web-platform designed to implement and monitor participatory processes. It involved a panel of 51 experts and 30 stakeholders from different areas of knowledge and geographies. In three consecutive rounds the panel indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with indicator's relevance for evaluating population health in Europe. Inferential statistics were applied to draw conclusions on observed level of agreement (Scott's Pi interrater reliability coefficient) and opinion change (McNemar Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to check if the field of expertise influenced the panellist responses (Wilk's Lambda test).ResultsThe panel participated extensively in the study (overall response rate: 80%). Eighty indicators reached group agreement for selection in the areas of: economic and social environment (12); demographic change (5); lifestyle and health behaviours (8); physical environment (6); built environment (12); healthcare services (11) and health outcomes (26). Higher convergence of group opinion towards agreement on the relevance of indicators was seen for lifestyle and health behaviours, healthcare services, and health outcomes. The panellists' field of expertise influenced responses: statistically significant differences were found for economic and social environment (p < 0.05 in round 1 and 2), physical environment (p < 0.01 in round 1) and health outcomes (p < 0.01 in round 3).ConclusionsThe high levels of participation observed in this study, by involving experts and stakeholders and ascertaining their views, underpinned the added value of using a transparent Web-Delphi process to promote agreement on what indicators are relevant to appraise population health.

Project description:In 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO) published recommendations on the use of optimization or "task-shifting" strategies for key, effective maternal and newborn interventions (the OptimizeMNH guidance). When making recommendations about complex health system interventions such as task-shifting, information about the feasibility and acceptability of interventions can be as important as information about their effectiveness. However, these issues are usually not addressed with the same rigour. This paper describes our use of several innovative strategies to broaden the range of evidence used to develop the OptimizeMNH guidance. In this guidance, we systematically included evidence regarding the acceptability and feasibility of relevant task-shifting interventions, primarily using qualitative evidence syntheses and multi-country case study syntheses; we used an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) approach); we used a structured evidence-to-decision framework for health systems (the DECIDE framework) to help the guidance panel members move from the different types of evidence to recommendations.The systematic inclusion of a broader range of evidence, and the use of new guideline development tools, had a number of impacts. Firstly, this broader range of evidence provided relevant information about the feasibility and acceptability of interventions considered in the guidance as well as information about key implementation considerations. However, inclusion of this evidence required more time, resources and skills. Secondly, the GRADE-CERQual approach provided a method for indicating to panel members how much confidence they should place in the findings from the qualitative evidence syntheses and so helped panel members to use this qualitative evidence appropriately. Thirdly, the DECIDE framework gave us a structured format in which we could present a large and complex body of evidence to panel members and end users. The framework also prompted the panel to justify their recommendations, giving end users a record of how these decisions were made.By expanding the range of evidence assessed in a guideline process, we increase the amount of time and resources required. Nevertheless, the WHO has assessed the outputs of this process to be valuable and is currently repeating the approach used in OptimizeMNH in other guidance processes.