ArticleHuman resources for health2023
Development of the WHO eye care competency framework.
Article in Human resources for health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seeing the unseen: The low treatment rate of eye emergencies in Africa.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Lived experience and lessons learned from the support of two secondary eye care units to improve cataract surgery and refractive services in two regions of Ethiopia: health system-strengthening support.International health · 2025Article
- Perceptions and Experiences of Key Informants in Eye Health on the Implementation of Eye Care Health Promotion Interventions in South Africa.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe eye care workforce, particularly in lower resource settings, face challenges of limited integration into the health system, limited workforce capacity, mismatch of workforce to population need and poor quality of care. In recognition of these challenges, coupled with a gap in existing tools, provides a strong rationale for the development of the Eye care competency framework (ECCF).
methodsA mixed methods approach was utilised to develop and validate the ECCF. Content was developed by extracting relevant components of existing frameworks used both within and outside of eye care. A diverse technical working group provided feedback and guidance on the structure, design, and content to create a preliminary draft. Competencies and activities were validated using a modified-Delphi study, and the framework was then piloted at four sites to understand how the tool can be implemented in different settings.
resultsThe final version of the ECCF included eight outcomes, nine guiding principles, and content of each of the key elements, including the six domains, 22 competencies, 21 activities, 193 behaviours and 234 tasks, and the knowledge and skills that underpin them. 95/112 participants from the six WHO regions completed the modified-Delphi study, yielding an average of 96% agreement across the competencies and activities in the ECCF. The pilot showcased the versatility and flexibility of the ECCF, where each of the four sites had a different experience in implementing the ECCF. All sites found that the ECCF enabled them to identify gaps within their current workforce documentation.
conclusionsThe ECCF was developed using a collaborative approach, reflecting the opinions of participants and stakeholders from all around the world. The comprehensive competencies and activities developed in the ECCF encompass the diverse roles of eye care workers, and thus encourage multi-disciplinary care and better integration into the health system. It is recommended that eye care workforce planners and developers use the ECCF, and adapt it to their context, to support workforce development and focus on the quality and scope of eye care service provision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.