scholarly journals Eye health indicators for universal health coverage: results of a global expert prioritisation process

2021 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2020-318481
Author(s):  
Ian McCormick ◽  
Islay Mactaggart ◽  
Serge Resnikoff ◽  
Debbie Muirhead ◽  
GV Murthy ◽  
...  

IntroductionIn its recent World Report on Vision, the WHO called for an updated approach to monitor eye health as part of universal health coverage (UHC). This project sought to develop a consensus among eye health experts from all world regions to produce a menu of indicators for countries to monitor eye health within UHC.MethodsWe reviewed the literature to create a long-list of indicators aligned to the conceptual framework for monitoring outlined in WHO’s World Report on Vision. We recruited a panel of 72 global eye health experts (40% women) to participate in a two-round, online prioritisation exercise. Two-hundred indicators were presented in Round 1 and participants prioritised each on a 4-point Likert scale. The highest-ranked 95 were presented in Round 2 and were (1) scored against four criteria (feasible, actionable, reliable and internationally comparable) and (2) ranked according to their suitability as a ‘core’ indicator for collection by all countries. The top 30 indicators ranked by these two parameters were then used as the basis for the steering group to develop a final menu.ResultsThe menu consists of 22 indicators, including 7 core indicators, that represent important concepts in eye health for 2020 and beyond, and are considered feasible, actionable, reliable and internationally comparable.ConclusionWe believe this list can inform the development of new national eye health monitoring frameworks, monitor progress on key challenges to eye health and be considered in broader UHC monitoring indices at national and international levels.

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Ian McCormick ◽  
Islay Mactaggart ◽  
Andrew Bastawrous ◽  
Matthew J Burton ◽  
Jacqueline Ramke

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramya Kumar

AbstractSri Lanka reports impressive health indicators compared to its peers in the South Asian region. Maternal and infant mortality are relatively low, and several intractable communicable diseases have been eliminated. The publicly financed and delivered “free” healthcare system has been critical to these health achievements. Placing the country’s healthcare system in historical context, this commentary analyses the contradictions and political tensions surrounding Sri Lanka’s 2018 Universal Health Coverage (UHC) policy, with attention to the Ministry of Health’s plans for public–private partnerships (PPP). As economic exigencies and private interests increasingly erode the 1951 “Free Health” policy, this commentary calls for a re-envisioning of UHC that can meet people’s aspirations for health and social justice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariyam Suzana ◽  
Helen Walls ◽  
Richard Smith ◽  
Johanna Hanefeld

BackgroundUniversal health coverage (UHC) is difficult to achieve in settings short of medicines, health workers and health facilities. These characteristics define the majority of the small island developing states (SIDS), where population size negates the benefits of economies of scale. One option to alleviate this constraint is to import health services, rather than focus on domestic production. This paper provides empirical analysis of the potential impact of this option.MethodsAnalysis was based on publicly accessible data for 14 SIDS, covering health-related travel and health indicators for the period 2003–2013, together with in-depth review of medical travel schemes for the two highest importing SIDS—the Maldives and Tuvalu.FindingsMedical travel from SIDS is accelerating. The SIDS studied generally lacked health infrastructure and technologies, and the majority of them had lower than the recommended number of physicians in a country, which limits their capacity for achieving UHC. Tuvalu and the Maldives were the highest importers of healthcare and notably have public schemes that facilitate medical travel and help lower the out-of-pocket expenditure on medical travel. Although different in approach, design and performance, the medical travel schemes in Tuvalu and the Maldives are both examples of measures used to increase access to health services that cannot feasibly be provided in SIDS.InterpretationOur findings suggest that importing health services (through schemes to facilitate medical travel) is a potential mechanism to help achieve universal healthcare for SIDS but requires due diligence over cost, equity and quality control.


2022 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 5-8
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Ramke ◽  
Nyawira Mwangi ◽  
Helen Burn ◽  
Esmael Habtamu ◽  
Clare E Gilbert

In the recent World Report on Vision, the World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted the need to strengthen health information systems (HIS) for eye health, including data from population-based surveys and facility-based sources such as service and resource data. The report also outlined the importance of strengthening eye health to enable Universal Health Coverage. In high-income countries, facility-based data are increasingly used to monitor eye services and answer research questions, including under the banner of big data. While there are some examples of comprehensive and robust information systems for eye care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the potential of facility-based data is yet to be realized in many LMICs. Here, we discuss the potential of strengthening the collection and use of facility-based data for eye health in LMICs to monitor Universal Health Coverage relevant aspects of service access, quality, and equity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document