Background: Childhood cataract is a leading cause of blindness in children in eastern Africa. High quality surgical services have been established at a few tertiary facilities in the region; however, there appears to be delay in presentation to hospital. Methods: Parents or guardians of all children presenting to KCMC Hospital or CCBRT Hospital with congenital (recognised since birth or within the first year) or developmental (cataract leading to reduction in vision after 1 year of age) cataract were interviewed regarding the actions taken (and timing of these) before coming to hospital. Demographic information was also collected. For analysis children were grouped as either late presenters (more than 12 months after recognition) or not late presenters (within 12 months of recognition) and predictors of late presentation were assessed. Results: Among 178 children (74 congenital cataract and 104 developmental cataract) analysed, the mean delay between recognition by the caregiver and presentation to hospital was 34 months, almost 3 years. The median delay was 18 months—9 months for congenital cataract and 24 months for developmental cataract. Long delay in presentation was associated with having developmental cataract, living far from the hospital, and low socioeducational status of the mother. Among children with congenital cataract, having another sibling increased the likelihood of early presentation. Conclusion: Delay in presentation remains a significant problem for children needing surgery for congenital or developmental cataract. Parents who have multiple children may be more likely to seek early treatment, possibly because their expectations of achievable sight at a young age are based on previous experience of their older children. Educational efforts should aim to reach the most “unreachable” (those living the furthest from the hospital and having the lowest socioeducational status of the mother).

Reducing visual impairment and blindness in children in resource-poor countries is one of the key components of the major global prevention of blindness initiative, VISION 2020 the Right to Sight. Although visual impairment and blindness among children is much less common than among adults, the potential lifespan of a child means that the lifelong impact of such impairment is very large. Over 10 years ago, it was estimated that, globally, 1.4 million children were blind. Much has changed in the past 10–20 years and there is a need to reassess both the magnitude and causes of global childhood blindness and visual impairment. While the widespread implementation of vitamin A supplementation and measles immunisation programmes have led to a reduction in vitamin A deficiency-related blindness in many poor countries, retinopathy of prematurity is now undergoing a third wave of endemicity, particularly in newly industrialising countries in Latin America and Asia. Childhood cataract is better recognised as an important potentially avoidable problem, as is paediatric glaucoma and refractive error in some populations. Trained paediatric ophthalmologists, although still too few, are growing in number in poor countries. A programmatic approach with a multidisciplinary team is essential to reducing childhood blindness. The elements of such programmes and the need for planning are discussed.

Paul Courtright and colleagues argue that the changing patterns of global childhood blindness suggest a need to reassess research, training, and programmatic requirements.

The impact of unmet eye care needs in sub-Saharan Africa is compounded by barriers to accessing eye care, limited engagement with communities, a shortage of appropriately skilled health personnel, and inadequate support from health systems. The renewed focus on primary health care has led to support for greater integration of eye health into national health systems. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate available evidence of integration of eye health into primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa from a health systems strengthening perspective.

In collaboration with the health ministries that we serve and other partners, we set out to complete the multiple-country Global Trachoma Mapping Project. To maximize the accuracy and reliability of its outputs, we needed in-built, practical mechanisms for quality assurance and quality control. This article describes how those mechanisms were created and deployed. Using expert opinion, computer simulation, working groups, field trials, progressively accumulated in-project experience, and external evaluations, we developed 1) criteria for where and where not to undertake population-based prevalence surveys for trachoma; 2) three iterations of a standardized training and certification system for field teams; 3) a customized Android phone–based data collection app; 4) comprehensive support systems; and 5) a secure end-to-end pipeline for data upload, storage, cleaning by objective data managers, analysis, health ministry review and approval, and online display. We are now supporting peer-reviewed publication. Our experience shows that it is possible to quality control and quality assure prevalence surveys in such a way as to maximize comparability of prevalence estimates between countries and permit high-speed, high-fidelity data processing and storage, while protecting the interests of health ministries.

The models for addressing the delivery of an eye-care service in sub-Saharan Africa have seen considerable revision in the last 30 years, and the on-going challenges, as well as the future needs, will probably require many more changes and new systems. There is a need to assess the different models that are currently employed, in order to ensure that all potential contributions to the elimination of avoidable blindness are used; the evolving concept of primary eye care (PEC) requires such assessment. For the current review, the published literature on eye care provided by general front-line healthworkers was screened for articles that provided evidence of the impact of such PEC on the general delivery of eye care in sub-Saharan Africa. Of the 103 relevant articles detected, only three provided evidence of the effectiveness of PEC and the authors of all three of these articles suggested that such eye care was not meeting the needs or expectations of the target populations, the trainers, or programmes of eye care. Among the main problems identified were a lack of a clear definition of the scope of practice for PEC, the need for clarifying the specific skills that a front-line healthworker could perform correctly, and the changing needs and expectations for the delivery of an eye-care service in Africa. If PEC is to become adequately grounded in Africa, the generation of further evidence of the effectiveness and limitations of such care would be a prudent move.