Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30526579›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Process evaluation of a National Primary Eye Care Programme in Rwanda.

Jennifer L Y Yip, Tess Bright, Sebastian Ford, Wanjiku Mathenge, Hannah Faal, Rwanda Primary Eye Care Process evaluation group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer L Y YipInternational Centre for Evidence on Disability, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1V, UK. Jennifer.yip@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3788-7170
Tess BrightInternational Centre for Evidence on Disability, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1V, UK.
Sebastian FordVision for a Nation Foundation, London, UK.
Wanjiku MathengeRwanda International Institute of Ophthalmology and Dr Agarwal's Eye Hospital, Kigali, Rwanda.
Hannah FaalAfrica Vision Research Institute, Durban, South Africa, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.
Rwanda Primary Eye Care Process evaluation group
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Calabar · NGWorld Vision International · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisual impairment is a global public health problem, with an estimated 285 million affected globally, of which 43% are due to refractive error. A lack of specialist eye care in low and middle-income countries indicates a new model of care would support a task-shifting model and address this urgent need. We describe the features and results of the process evaluation of a national primary eye care (PEC) programme in Rwanda.

methodsWe used the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework to examine the implementation of the PEC programme, and to determine enablers and challenges to implementation. The process evaluation uses a mixed methods approach, drawing on results from several sources including a survey of 574 attendees at 50 PEC clinics, structured clinical observations of 30 PEC nurses, in-depth interviews with 19 key stakeholders, documentary review and a participatory process evaluation workshop with key stakeholders to review collated evidence and contextualize the results.

resultsStructured clinical assessment indicated that the PEC provided is consistent with the PEC curriculum, with over 90% of the clinical examination processes conducted correctly. In 4 years, programme monitoring data showed that nearly a million PEC eye examinations had been conducted in every health centre in Rwanda, with 2707 nurses trained. The development of the eye health system was an important enabler in the implementation of PEC, where political support allowed key developments such as inclusion of eye-drops on the essential medicines list, the inclusion of PEC on insurance benefits, the integration of PEC indicators on the health management information systems and integration of the PEC curriculum into the general nursing school curriculum. Challenges included high turnover of primary care nurses, lack of clarity and communication on the future funding of the programme, competing priorities for the health sector and sustained supervision to assure quality of care.

conclusionsA model of a national primary eye care programme is presented, with service delivery to all areas in Rwanda. Key learning from this evaluation is the importance of strengthening the eye health care system, together with a strong focus on training primary care nurses using a PEC curriculum.

Indexed as

CurriculumDelivery of Health CareDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEducation, NursingHumansPrimary Care NursingPrimary Health CareProcess Assessment, Health CareRefractive ErrorsRetrospective StudiesRwandaSurveys and QuestionnairesVision DisordersVision ScreeningDelivery of health careEvaluationIntegrated[MeSH] primary health care

Identifiers

PMID30526579
PMCPMC6286556
OpenAlexW2904265813

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.