Abstract
Introduction Evidence suggests that certain groups face substantial barriers to accessing eye care services. This study seeks to explore barriers and potential solutions as perceived by members of the population groups who are least able to access care in the context of four national eye screening programmes. We aim to use rapid yet robust mixed methods that allow us to identify generalisable findings and testable service modifications to improve equitable access to care.
Methods and analysis This is a multi-phased exploratory sequential mixed methods study. First, we will conduct interviews with people purposively selected from the sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest odds of accessing care within each screening programme. Taking a phenomenological approach, we will explore their perceptions of barriers and potential service modifications that could boost attendance at eye clinics among people from these ‘left behind’ groups. We will use a deductive analytic matrix to facilitate the rapid analysis of qualitative data. Space will be made for the inductive identification of themes that are not necessarily captured in the framework. Sample size will be determined by thematic saturation. Next we will conduct a survey with a representative sample of non-attenders from the same left behind groups, asking them to rank each suggested service modification by likely impact. Finally, we will convene a multistakeholder workshop to asses each service modification based on ranking, likely impact, feasibility, cost, and potential risks. The most promising service modifications will be implemented and evaluated in a follow-on randomised controlled trial, the methods for which will be reported elsewhere.
Ethics and dissemination This project has been approved by independent research ethics committees in Botswana, Kenya, India, Nepal and the UK. We will disseminate our findings through local community advisory boards, national eye screening meetings, in peer-reviewed journals, and at conferences.
Strengths and limitations of this study
We have developed a bespoke rapid qualitative approach that is designed to deliver rich and robust data with speed and relatively low costs. Our approach is based on a prior scoping review of rapid methods.
By using mixed methods we are able to move from rich data to statistically generalisable findings that can be implemented across four national programmes.
Our project is embedded withing real-world programmes and will deliver actionable intelligence directly to policymakers, programme funders, and programme implementers.
Our work places the experience and perspectives of ‘left behind’ groups at the very centre of programmatic quality improvement. This protocol has benefited from the active engagement of lay representatives in each of the four countries.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (using the UKs Official Development Assistance (ODA) Funding) and Wellcome [215633/Z/19/Z] under the NIHR-Wellcome Partnership for Global Health Research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This project has been approved by independent research ethics committees in Botswana, Kenya, India, Nepal and the UK. We will disseminate our findings through local community advisory boards, national eye screening meetings, in peer-reviewed journals, and at conferences.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
