Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29758069›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Strengthening primary eye care in South Africa: An assessment of services and prospective evaluation of a health systems support package.

Rivka R Lilian, Jean Railton, Erik Schaftenaar, Moyahabo Mabitsi, Cornelis J Grobbelaar, N Sellina Khosa, Babra H Maluleke, Helen E Struthers, James A McIntyre, Remco P H Peters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Quality of care provided to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Tshwane, South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024
    Article
  4. Experiences of keratoconus patients attending public eye care facilities in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Eye Health among Public Sector Eye Health Workers in South Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Rivka R LilianAnova Health Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Jean RailtonAnova Health Institute, Tzaneen, South Africa.
Erik SchaftenaarAnova Health Institute, Tzaneen, South Africa.
Moyahabo MabitsiAnova Health Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Cornelis J GrobbelaarAnova Health Institute, Cape Winelands, South Africa.
N Sellina KhosaAnova Health Institute, Tzaneen, South Africa.
Babra H MalulekeAnova Health Institute, Tzaneen, South Africa.
Helen E StruthersAnova Health Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.
James A McIntyreAnova Health Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Remco P H PetersAnova Health Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-2124-7275

Funding

PEPFAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual impairment is a significant public health concern, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where eye care is predominantly provided at the primary healthcare (PHC) level, known as primary eye care. This study aimed to perform an evaluation of primary eye care services in three districts of South Africa and to assess whether an ophthalmic health system strengthening (HSS) package could improve these services. Baseline surveys were conducted in Cape Winelands District, Johannesburg Health District and Mopani District at 14, 25 and 36 PHC facilities, respectively. Thereafter, the HSS package, comprising group training, individual mentoring, stakeholder engagement and resource provision, was implemented in 20 intervention sites in Mopani District, with the remaining 16 Mopani facilities serving as control sites. At baseline, less than half the facilities in Johannesburg and Mopani had dedicated eye care personnel or sufficient space to measure visual acuity. Although visual acuity charts were available in most facilities, <50% assessed patients at the correct distance. Median score for availability of nine essential drugs was <70%. Referral criteria knowledge was highest in Cape Winelands and Johannesburg, with poor clinical knowledge across all districts. Several HSS interventions produced successful outcomes: compared to control sites there was a significant increase in the proportion of intervention sites with eye care personnel and resources such as visual acuity charts (p = 0.02 and <0.01, respectively). However, engaging with district pharmacists did not improve availability of essential drugs (p = 0.47). Referral criteria knowledge improved significantly in intervention sites (p<0.01) but there was no improvement in clinical knowledge (p = 0.76). Primary eye care in South Africa faces multiple challenges with regard to organisation of care, resource availability and clinical competence. The HSS package successfully improved some aspects of this care, but further development is warranted together with debate regarding the positioning of eye services at PHC level.

Indexed as

OphthalmologyPrimary Health CareRural Health ServicesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID29758069
PMCPMC5951550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.