0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Research about eye health and eye health services in Pacific Island Countries and Territories: a scoping review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          We aimed to summarise the extent and nature of published research about eye health and eye health services in Pacific Island Countries and Territories since 1980.

          Methods

          We searched Medline, EMBASE, Global Health and Cochrane Library to identify publications about eye health and eye health services in 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories from 1 January 1980 to 26 January 2024. Study selection and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers independently.

          Findings

          Of the 1610 publications identified, 180 were included. This research was most commonly conducted in Papua New Guinea (n = 52) or Fiji (n = 33) and focused on diabetic retinopathy (n = 29) or trachoma (n = 18), with few focused on cataract or refractive error. While eye health services research was common in the past, recent research focused on trachoma. The included research was largely undertaken and funded by people and organisations from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and the USA, though authors with Pacific affiliations is increasing.

          Interpretation

          Few countries have up-to-date estimates of the prevalence of vision impairment or service coverage to enable evidence-informed planning. Increased effort is required to strengthen research capability to ensure research priorities in eye health are set by Pacific Peoples.

          Funding

          The Fred Hollows Foundation New Zealand.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

              Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Reg Health West Pac
                Lancet Reg Health West Pac
                The Lancet Regional Health: Western Pacific
                Elsevier
                2666-6065
                27 July 2024
                September 2024
                27 July 2024
                : 50
                : 101152
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Auckland, New Zealand
                [b ]The Fred Hollows Foundation New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand
                [c ]Pacific Eye Institute, Suva, Republic of Fiji
                [d ]National Prevention of Blindness Committee, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
                [e ]The Fred Hollows Foundation New Zealand, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
                [f ]International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
                [g ]Eye Department, Ebeye Hospital, Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands
                [h ]Fiji National University, Suva, Republic of Fiji
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Auckland, Park Road, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand. j.ramke@ 123456auckland.ac.nz
                Article
                S2666-6065(24)00146-9 101152
                10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101152
                11332796
                39161741
                4b483859-31e1-44a6-9696-757ad35f4e84
                © 2024 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 19 April 2024
                : 4 June 2024
                : 8 July 2024
                Categories
                Review

                oceania,pacific island countries and territories,eye health research,global eye health,vision impairment

                Comments

                Comment on this article