Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33762252›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2021

Eye care delivery models to improve access to eye care for Indigenous peoples in high-income countries: a scoping review.

Helen Burn, Lisa Hamm, Joanna Black, Anthea Burnett, Matire Harwood, Matthew J Burton, Jennifer R Evans, Jacqueline Ramke

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Access to Myopia Care in the United States-A Narrative Review.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Helen BurnInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK helen.burn1@alumni.lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1469-8169
Lisa HammSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-2777-7146
Joanna BlackSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-5100-8796
Anthea BurnettSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3772-6625
Matire HarwoodGeneral Practice and Primary Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-1240-5139
Matthew J BurtonInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1872-9169
Jennifer R EvansInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6137-2030
Jacqueline RamkeInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5764-1306

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 207472/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGlobally, there are ~370 million Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples typically experience worse health compared with non-Indigenous people, including higher rates of avoidable vision impairment. Much of this gap in eye health can be attributed to barriers that impede access to eye care services. We conducted a scoping review to identify and summarise service delivery models designed to improve access to eye care for Indigenous peoples in high-income countries.

methodsSearches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health in January 2019 and updated in July 2020. All study designs were eligible if they described a model of eye care service delivery aimed at populations with over 50% Indigenous peoples. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles and completed data charting. We extracted data on publication details, study context, service delivery interventions, outcomes and evaluations, engagement with Indigenous peoples and access dimensions targeted. We summarised findings descriptively following thematic analysis.

resultsWe screened 2604 abstracts and 67 studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Studies were focused on Indigenous peoples in Australia (n=45), USA (n=11), Canada (n=7), New Zealand (n=2), Taiwan (n=1) and Greenland (n=1). The main disease focus was diabetic retinopathy (n=30, 45%), followed by 'all eye care' (n=16, 24%). Most studies focused on targeted interventions to increase availability of services. Fewer than one-third of studies reported involving Indigenous communities when designing the service. 41 studies reflected on whether the model improved access, but none undertook rigorous evaluation or quantitative assessment.

conclusionsThe geographical and clinical scope of service delivery models to improve access to eye care for Indigenous peoples in high-income countries is narrow, with most studies focused on Australia and services for diabetic retinopathy. More and better engagement with Indigenous communities is required to design and implement accessible eye care services.

Indexed as

Indigenous PeoplesAustraliaCanadaDeveloped CountriesHumansNew ZealandTaiwaneye diseaseshealth systemssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33762252
PMCPMC7993359

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.