Characterising transnational ophthalmic surgical partnerships by engagement and training

Abstract

Background Transnational ophthalmic partnerships exist between high‐income countries (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) in varying capacities. We analyzed partnership stakeholders to better understand and address disparities in ophthalmic surgical care. Methods An international Web search was conducted to identify surgeons, foundations or organisations participating in ophthalmic delivery and/or capacity building from 2010 to 2019. Partnerships were defined through clinical activities, education and training and/or research support. Descriptive data on current ophthalmic partnerships were collected from published reports, literature reviews and information on stakeholder webpages. Partnerships were classified by the extent of engagement and training: grade I ‘engagement’ represented documented partnerships of at least 1 year and grade I ‘training’ limited or poorly defined skills transfer programmes, while grade III ‘engagement’ represented partnerships with well‐documented fiscal investment and/or research productivity and grade III ‘training’ established training programmes. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and geospatially depicted on Tableau (Mountain View, CA) and ArcMap software (Redlands, CA). Results In total, 209 unique HIC‐LMIC partnerships encompassing 92 unique countries were described. The most common HIC partners were from North America (123; 59%), followed by Europe (75; 36%). The most common LMIC partners were from Africa (102; 49%), followed by Asia‐Pacific (54; 26%) and Latin America (44; 21%). Additionally, partnerships most frequently provided services in cataract (48%), glaucoma (25%) and diabetic retinopathy (25%). The most common ‘engagement’ classifications were grade I (36%) or II (40%); the most common ‘training’ classifications were grade I (61%) or II (23%). Conclusion Transnational ophthalmic partnerships exist with varying degrees of both engagement and training. Partnerships are stronger in research collaboration and direct services, and weaker in LMIC‐directed training programmes.