Summary Background The number of individuals with vision impairment worldwide is increasing because of an ageing population. We aimed to systematically identify studies describing the association between vision impairment and mortality, and to assess the association between vision impairment and all-cause mortality. Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, and Global Health database on Feb 1, 2020, for studies published in English between database inception and Feb 1, 2020. We included prospective and retrospective cohort studies that measured the association between vision impairment and all-cause mortality in people aged 40 years or older who were followed up for 1 year or more. In a protocol amendment, we also included randomised controlled trials that met the same criteria as for cohort studies, in which the association between visual impairment and mortality was independent of the study intervention. Studies that did not report age-adjusted mortality data, or that focused only on populations with specific health conditions were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. We graded the overall certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. We did a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled maximally adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality for individuals with a visual acuity of <6/12 versus those with ≥6/12; <6/18 versus those with ≥6/18; <6/60 versus those with ≥6/18; and <6/60 versus those with ≥6/60. Findings Our searches identified 3845 articles, of which 28 studies, representing 30 cohorts (446 088 participants) from 12 countries, were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis included 17 studies, representing 18 cohorts (47 998 participants). There was variability in the methods used to assess and report vision impairment. Pooled HRs for all-cause mortality were 1·29 (95% CI 1·20–1·39) for visual acuity <6/12 versus ≥6/12, with low heterogeneity between studies (n=15; τ 2 =0·01, I 2 =31·46%); 1·43 (1·22–1·68) for visual acuity <6/18 versus ≥6/18, with low heterogeneity between studies (n=2; τ 2 =0·0, I 2 =0·0%); 1·89 (1·45–2·47) for visual acuity <6/60 versus ≥6/18 (n=1); and 1·02 (0·79–1·32) for visual acuity <6/60 versus ≥6/60 (n=2; τ 2 =0·02, I 2 =25·04%). Three studies received an assessment of low risk of bias across all six domains, and six studies had a high risk of bias in one or more domains. Effect sizes were greater for studies that used best-corrected visual acuity compared with those that used presenting visual acuity as the vision assessment method (p=0·0055), but the effect sizes did no...

ObjectiveThe number of emergency admissions to hospital in England and Wales has risen sharply in recent years and is a matter of concern to clinicians, policy makers and patients alike. However, the factors that influence this decision are poorly understood. We aimed to ascertain how non-clinical factors can affect hospital admission rates.MethodWe conducted semistructured interviews with 21 participants from three acute hospital trusts. Participants included 11 emergency department (ED) doctors, 3 ED nurses, 3 managers and 4 inpatient doctors. A range of seniority was represented among these roles. Interview questions were developed from key themes identified in a theoretical framework developed by the authors to explain admission decision-making. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed by two independent researchers using framework analysis.FindingsDepartmental factors such as busyness, time of day and levels of senior support were identified as non-clinical influences on a decision to admit rather than discharge patients. The 4-hour waiting time target, while overall seen as positive, was described as influencing decisions around patient admission, independent of clinical need. Factors external to the hospital such as a patient’s social support and community follow-up were universally considered powerful influences on admission. Lastly, the culture within the ED was described as having a strong influence (either negatively or positively) on the decision to admit patients.ConclusionMultiple factors were identified which go some way to explaining marked variation in admission rates observed between different EDs. Many of these factors require further inquiry through quantitative research in order to understand their influence further.

No abstract

No 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.