RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effective cataract surgical coverage: An

indicator for measuring quality-of-care in the
context of Universal Health Coverage
Jacqueline Ramke1,2*, Clare E. Gilbert3, Arier C. Lee2, Peter Ackland4, Hans Limburg5,
Allen Foster3
1 School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
New South Wales, Australia, 2 School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand,
3 Department Clinical Research, Faculty Infectious & Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, 4 International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, London,
United Kingdom, 5 Health Information Services, Nijenburg 32, Grootebroek, Netherlands

* jramke@gmail.com
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
a1111111111

Objective
To define and demonstrate effective cataract surgical coverage (eCSC), a candidate UHC
OPEN ACCESS
indicator that combines a coverage measure (cataract surgical coverage, CSC) with quality
Citation: Ramke J, Gilbert CE, Lee AC, Ackland P, (post-operative visual outcome).
Limburg H, Foster A (2017) Effective cataract
surgical coverage: An indicator for measuring
quality-of-care in the context of Universal Health Methods
Coverage. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0172342.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 All Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB) surveys with datasets on the online
RAAB Repository on April 1 2016 were downloaded. The most recent study from each coun-
Editor: Rohit C. Khanna, LV Prasad Eye Institute,
INDIA try was included. By country, cataract surgical outcome (CSOGood, 6/18 or better; CSOPoor,
worse than 6/60), CSC (operated cataract as a proportion of operable plus operated cata-
Received: October 16, 2016
ract) and eCSC (operated cataract and a good outcome as a proportion of operable plus
Accepted: February 3, 2017
operated cataract) were calculated. The association between CSC and CSO was assessed
Published: March 1, 2017 by linear regression. Gender inequality in CSC and eCSC was calculated.
Copyright: 2017 Ramke et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which Findings
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and Datasets from 20 countries were included (20052013; 67,337 participants; 5,474 cataract
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
surgeries). Median CSC was 53.7% (inter-quartile range[IQR] 46.166.6%), CSOGood was
58.9% (IQR 53.767.6%) and CSOPoor was 17.7% (IQR 11.321.1%). Coverage and quality
Data Availability Statement: The datasets used in
this analysis can be downloaded from: http://
of cataract surgery were moderately associatedevery 1% CSC increase was associated
raabdata.info/repository/. with a 0.46% CSOGood increase and 0.28% CSOPoor decrease. Median eCSC was 36.7%
Funding: The authors received no specific funding
(IQR 30.250.6%), approximately one-third lower than the median CSC. Women tended to
for this work. fare worse than men, and gender inequality was slightly higher for eCSC (4.6% IQR 0.5
Competing interests: The authors have declared
7.1%) than for CSC (median 2.3% IQR -1.511.6%).
that no competing interests exist.

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 1 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

Conclusion
eCSC allows monitoring of quality in conjunction with coverage of cataract surgery. In the
surveys analysed, on average 36.7% of people who could benefit from cataract surgery had
undergone surgery and obtained a good visual outcome.

Introduction
Quality-of-care encompasses many clinical and non-clinical dimensions [1] and is one of the
objectives embodied by the concept of Universal Health Coverage (UHC), together with equity
in access and financial protection.[2] Effectiveness is considered one of seven attributes that
define quality of health care, and is defined as the degree to which attainable health improve-
ments are realized.[3]
Historically, coverage indicators focused on access coverage, reflecting the proportion of a
population needing a service who used it. As early as 2001 the World Health Organization
(WHO) recognized the importance of monitoring quality in addition to access, and promoted
the routine assessment of effective coverage to reflect the proportion of a population needing a
service who used it and obtained the desired result.[4, 5] Initially effective coverage was not
widely adopted, possibly due to perceived complexity and the absence of data for its calcula-
tion.[6] Effective coverage has received more interest in the context of UHC,[7, 8] and the abil-
ity to measure effective coverage was included as a criterion for UHC tracer indicators in the
2016 World Health Statistics.[5]
For many health interventions assessing quality in addition to access coverage is not
straight forward. For most of the current UHC tracer indicators effective coverage cannot be
measured [5]; for other interventions the calculation of effective coverage relies on the use of
intervention inputs as proxy indicators for the quality of the intervention outcomes.[9, 10]
Cataract surgery is an intervention for which effective coverage can be measured using the
intervention outcomevisual acuity assessment has been cited as a biomarker to indicate
quality in the context of UHC,[7, 8, 11] and assessment of post-operative visual acuity can pro-
vide an indication of the effectiveness of cataract surgery at restoring vision.
Cataract is a clouding of the lens of the eye which reduces visual acuity. It is the leading cause
of blindness globally, affecting 10.8 million people in 2010, while a further 35.2 million people
had moderate or severe visual impairment due to cataract.[12] Age-related cataract occurs as a
result of denaturation of lens proteins and is currently thought to be irreversible. With aging of
the global population[13] the number of people with vision-impairing cataract will increase
unless cataract services improve in terms of access, output and quality. Accordingly, control of
blindness and visual impairment due to cataract is a priority in the World Health Organizations
(WHO) current Universal Eye Health: a global action plan 20142019 which was endorsed at
the 66th World Health Assembly[14, 15] (hereafter called the UEH Action Plan).
The only treatment currently available for cataract is surgical removal of the opaque lens
with implantation of an artificial intra ocular lens (IOL) to correct the refractive error (termed
aphakia). The use of IOLs is now universally accepted as the treatment of choice, giving imme-
diate and better visual rehabilitation than aphakic correction with spectacles. Cataract surgery
is a cost-effective intervention[16] that usually restores sight.[17] It can also improve quality-
of-life,[1820] time-use,[20] and social status[19] and positively impacts on poverty allevia-
tion.[1820] These strengths and benefits have contributed to the inclusion of cataract surgery
in recent essential surgery lists,[21, 22] as well as in the proposed initial surgical package for

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 2 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

UHC.[23] Cataract surgery can, however, be associated with poor visual outcomes for several
reasons. Firstly, another eye condition was known to be present before surgery, such as corneal
scarring, where surgery can improve vision but not to normal. Alternatively, cataract surgery
may reveal retinal or optic nerve disease which was not suspected before surgery. Second, the
surgery could be complicated, and third there may be longer-term complications such as cor-
neal oedema, retinal detachment, and thickening of the lens capsule, all of which are more fre-
quent following suboptimal surgery. Lastly, there may be inadequate optical correction despite
use of an IOL. In a study of almost 5,200 cataract operations in eight centres in Africa and
Asia, almost three-quarters of poor outcomes were attributed to short and long term surgical
complications or inadequate optical correction.[24] Visual acuity after cataract surgery does,
therefore, to a large extent reflect the quality of cataract surgical services and post-operative
care.
The UEH Action Plan includes an access coverage indicator for cataract services in the
form of cataract surgical coverage (CSC), which measures the number of people in a defined
population with operated cataract as a proportion of those having operable plus operated cata-
ract.[25] The WHO identified CSC as a promising UHC indicator in its inaugural UHC moni-
toring report, recognizing its value beyond monitoring coverage of eye services, as a means of
measuring access to services for the elderly more generally.[26] Despite the strengths of CSC,
it does not provide any indication of the quality of cataract services and so by itself is insuffi-
cient to track progress towards UEH.
Fortunately, it is possible from data already collected in population-based visual impair-
ment surveys to calculate an indicator that combines CSC with a measure of cataract surgery
quality, in the form of visual outcome in the operated eye (cataract surgical outcome). We
have called this indicator Effective Cataract Surgical Coverage (eCSC), and the aim of this paper
is to define and demonstrate eCSC as a candidate UHC tracer indicator.

Methods
Data source and study selection
The data used in this analysis were sourced from the online Repository of Rapid Assessment of
Avoidable Blindness (RAAB) surveys (hereafter called the Repository; http://www.raabdata.
info/). RAAB is a cross-sectional population-based survey of blindness and visual impairment
in people aged 50 years and above that has been validated (for blindness) against population-
based surveys.[27, 28] RAAB surveys are restricted to those aged 50 years and above as the
prevalence of blindness is highest in this age group,[27] so the sample size is smaller, and the
survey shorter and less expensive than surveys including all ages.[29] RAAB uses standard
examination methods, and the software, which is available freely for download,[30] includes a
data entry module with a comprehensive validation system and a standardized and automated
analysis package.
RAAB is listed as a preferred methodology in the UEH Action Plan[14] and is now the
most commonly implemented blindness survey methodology. RAAB was piloted in 2005, and
by April 1 2016, 266 separate RAAB surveys from 74 countries had been registered on the
Repository. Once surveys are registered, principal investigators are invited to allow their com-
pleted dataset to be freely available for download from the Repository. To construct the sample
for this analysis, all RAAB datasets available on the Repository on April 1 2016 were down-
loaded. For countries with more than one dataset available, the most recent was selected for
inclusion. Where numerous surveys had been conducted in the same country in the same
year, one was randomly selected for inclusion. Ethics approval was not sought for this analysis
as the datasets were anonymized and publicly available.

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 3 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

Definitions and variables

Blindness was defined as visual acuity of worse than 3/60 in the better eye and severe visual
impairment (SVI) was defined as visual acuity of worse than 6/60 but 3/60 or better in the bet-
ter eye.
Operated cataract was defined as the presence of pseudophakia (implanted IOL) or aphakia
(no IOL) on internal eye examination.
Visual acuity assessment commonly includes measurement of presenting visual acuity
(i.e. with spectacles if normally worn) as well as pinhole acuity. The use of a pinhole corrects
vision loss that is due to refractive error, which can be corrected by spectacles. In RAAB sur-
veys pinhole acuity is used to identify operable cataract when pinhole acuity remains poor in
the presence of an opaque lens. In many low and middle income countries, as in high income
countries, cataract surgery is now often offered before someone becomes blind. Therefore, in
this analysis, operable cataract was defined as pinhole visual acuity of SVI or blindness (less
than 6/60) where the principal cause was cataract. The analysis can be repeated using other
visual acuity cut-offs for operable cataract as appropriate (e.g. <3/60, < 6/18).
Cataract surgical coverage (CSC) was defined as the number of people in a defined popula-
tion with operated cataract as a proportion of those having operable plus operated cataract[25]
(i.e. pinhole visual acuity worse than 6/60; CSCpersons <6/60).

CSC x y=x y z100 %

where
x = individuals with unilateral pseudo/aphakia (i.e. operated cataract) and operable cataract in
the other eye;
y = individuals with bilateral pseudo/aphakia, regardless of visual acuity;
z = individuals with bilateral operable cataract.
Cataract surgical outcome (CSO) was defined as presenting visual acuity in the operated eye
of a person who had undergone unilateral cataract surgery, and presenting visual acuity in the
better eye of a person who had undergone bilateral cataract surgery. The WHO guidelines[31]
were used to categorise CSO into CSOGood (6/18 or better), CSOBorderline (worse than 6/18 to
6/60) or CSOPoor (worse than 6/60).
Effective cataract surgical coverage (eCSC) measures the number of people in a defined popu-
lation with operated cataract and a good outcome (i.e. presenting vision 6/18 or better) as a pro-
portion of those having operable plus operated cataract. As for CSC, eCSC was calculated using
the cut-off for operable cataract of worse than 6/60 pinhole visual acuity (eCSCpersons <6/60).

eCSC a b=x y z100 %

where
a = individuals with unilateral pseudo/aphakia achieving presenting visual acuity of 6/18 or
better in the operated eye and operable cataract in the other eye;
b = individuals with bilateral pseudo/aphakia achieving presenting visual acuity of 6/18 or bet-
ter in at least one eye;
x, y and z as above for CSC.

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 4 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

Data analysis
Data analysis was performed in Stata 12.0 (StataCorp LP, TX) and SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc,
Cary, NC). The codes used to derive the variables are provided in S1 Table.
CSC, eCSC, CSOGood and CSOPoor were calculated for each country. Observed CSOGood
and CSOPoor were plotted against CSC for each country, and compared to WHO targets[31]
for CSOGood (>80%) and CSOPoor (<5%). To test the hypothesis that CSC can be used as a
proxy indicator for CSO, linear regression was used to assess the association between i) CSC
and CSOGood and ii) CSC and CSOPoor, and correlation co-efficients were calculated. CSC and
eCSC were then plotted together and the relative gap between them was calculated for each
country (i.e. 1 eCSC / CSC).
Inequality. Gender is the only social variable routinely collected in RAAB surveys. To
examine inequality, CSC and eCSC were calculated separately for women and men. The abso-
lute gender inequality (i.e. the difference between women and men) for each outcome was cal-
culated for each country. A logistic regression model was developed to analyze the likelihood of
i) worse CSC (i.e. unoperated compared to operated cataract); and ii) worse eCSC (i.e. unoper-
ated or operated cataract with a borderline/poor outcome compared to operated and a good
outcome) in women compared to men. The model adjusted for age and the clustering effect of
country, and results are presented using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Sensitivity analysis: Time since surgery. Participants who underwent surgery more
recently may have better outcomes than those who had surgery longer ago. Possible reasons
for this include that earlier surgery may have used less refined procedures, and post-operative
complications and other causes of visual loss may have accrued over time. The chi squared test
(2) was used to assess the statistical significance of the difference in the proportion of eCSC
between surgeries undertaken in the three years preceding the survey and those undertaken
more than 3 years prior to the survey. Any individual who had bilateral surgery across the two
time periods was categorized based on the more recent surgery.

Results
On April 1 2016 datasets were available from 21 countries for surveys undertaken between
2005 and 2013. A dataset from Burundi was excluded as only eight participants had undergone
cataract surgery. In the remaining 20 surveys, the number of participants ranged from 1,787
4,868 (total 67,337; median 3,170 inter-quartile range [IQR] 2,9803,800) and the number of
cataract surgeries ranged from 78530 (total 5,474 in 3,795 people; median 239 IQR 164390;
S2 Table).
The WHO targets[31] for CSOGood (>80%) and CSOPoor (<5%) were not met in any coun-
try, although the extent to which targets were not met varied substantially between countries
(Fig 1). There was moderate association between CSC and both outcomesevery 1% increase
in CSC was associated with a 0.46% increase in CSOGood (p = 0.0012) and a 0.28% decrease in
CSOPoor (p = 0.0036). The R2 values indicate that CSC alone explained 45% of the variation in
CSOGood and 38% of the variation in CSOPoor.
The median eCSC (36.7% IQR 30.250.6%) was approximately one-third lower than the
median CSC (53.7% IQR 46.166.6%) (Fig 2 and S2 Table). When arranged in order of the rel-
ative gap between CSC and eCSC, the surveys in Argentina, Iran and Pakistan revealed high
levels of coverage (CSC 82.3%, 92.8% and 88.4% respectively) as well as relatively high levels of
good outcomes (eCSC was 92%, 82% and 81% of the CSC value respectively). Next in the fig-
ure are Cambodia and the Philippines, two settings with only moderate coverage levels (43.6%
and 46.9% respectively), but reasonably low gaps between CSC and eCSC, with eCSC being
79% of the CSC values in both locations. At the bottom of the figure, the countries with the

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 5 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

Fig 1. Proportion of operated eyes with presenting visual acuity of 6/18 or better (CSOGood) or worse than 6/60 (CSOPoor) plotted against
observed cataract surgical coverage (CSCpersons <6/60, %) in 20 countries, 20052013. WHO Targets established in 1998.[31].
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342.g001

largest relative gap between CSC and eCSC were Yemen (eCSC was 44% of the CSC value),
Malawi (47%) and Eritrea (51%).
Gender inequality was present for both CSC and eCSC. Despite large variation between
countries, on average women were worse off than men for both indicators (Fig 3). Gender
inequality remained after controlling for possible age differences between women and men
logistic regression showed women were more likely than men to have worse CSC (OR 1.3,
95%CI 1.11.6) and worse eCSC (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.01.5). The average level of inequality in
eCSC (median 4.6% IQR 0.57.1%) was slightly higher than CSC (median 2.3% IQR -1.5
11.6%).

Sensitivity analysis
Overall 2,086 of the 3,795 people who underwent surgery (55.0%) had done so in at least one
eye within three years of the survey. There was no difference in the proportion of eCSC (a+b)
between surgeries undertaken 3 years versus >3 years before the survey (43.1% versus 42.4%
respectively; 2 = 0.148, p = 0.700).

Discussion
Despite moderate correlation between coverage (CSC) and quality (CSO) of cataract services
(Fig 1), the results presented here confirm that in the context of UHC, it is insufficient to

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 6 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

Fig 2. Cataract surgical coverage (CSC) and effective cataract surgical coverage (eCSC; persons <6/60, %) in 20 countries, 20052013.
Arranged in ascending order of relative gap between CSC and eCSC (i.e. 1 eCSC / CSC); the gap is smallest for Argentina and largest for Yemen.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342.g002

monitor coverage without also monitoring quality. Ideally all individuals with bilateral severe
visual impairment from cataract would undergo cataract surgery and have their sight restored;
i.e. 100% coverage with 100% success. All studies included in this analysis reveal gaps from this
ideal. In most locations, cataract surgery failed to achieve the desired visual outcome, regard-
less of the coverage level. It appears there are some settingsshown in the bottom half of Fig 2
where people face the double-disadvantage of low levels of service coverage, and low likeli-
hood of a good visual outcome. However, this double-disadvantage is not universal, with sur-
veys in Cambodia and the Philippines revealing relatively high levels of good visual outcomes
in the context of only moderate coverage levels (Fig 2). Concurrent assessment of CSC and
eCSC in this way allows a more nuanced policy response compared to assessment of CSC in
isolation.[8]
Gender inequality in CSC is well known,[32] and our results confirm the tendency for
women to have lower coverage than men (Fig 3). We also found higher levels of inequality in
eCSC compared to CSC, highlighting a compounding of disadvantage for women, who tend to
fare worse than men in quality of visual outcomes[33] in addition to lower coverage.
Inequality in CSC has also been reported across socio-economic status (SES),[34] and likely
exists for other social factors. Disaggregated data are required to monitor inequality, and the
UEH Action plan calls for CSC to be disaggregated by age, gender and urban/rural domicile.
[14] For UHC, the minimum recommendation is to monitor inequality across gender, SES,

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 7 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

Fig 3. Absolute inequality between women and men in cataract surgical coverage (CSCpersons <6/60), and effective cataract
surgical coverage (eCSCpersons <6/60) in 20 countries, 20052013. Absolute inequality is the difference between women and men
(e.g. CSC in menCSC in women); a positive value indicates women are worse off. Horizontal dashed lines and labels indicate the
median values of all studies. Grey shading indicates the inter-quartile range (middle 50% of studies).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342.g003

and urban/rural domicile,[35] and we propose that eCSC is also monitored by these three fac-
tors as a minimum.
eCSC is a population-based indicator that can be used alongside CSC to promote quality
improvement of cataract surgery at the district and national level. Tools already exist to assess
cataract surgical outcome in clinical settings,[36, 37] and it has been shown that monitoring
activities improve outcomes.[38] eCSC provides different information to these clinical tools,
and should be used in conjunction with them to monitor services. For example, clinical tools
can collect pre, peri- and post-operative findings to provide more accurate reasons for poor
outcomes compared to assessments made during RAAB surveys. CSC and eCSC complement
clinical tools by summarising the real-world results in a given population to understand access
and quality of cataract surgery experienced by individuals and communities.

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 8 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

Adoption of eCSC at the global and national level may also lead to more focus on the quality
of services, and exploration of factors contributing to low eCSC results could highlight priorities
for intervention. For example, in most parts of the world aphakia has been superseded by pseu-
dophakia due to better visual outcomes,[17] and tends to be prevalent among those undergoing
surgery longer ago. However, aphakia remains an important contributor to poor outcomes in
some settings. For example, eCSC in Yemen was very low (17.3%) and study reports available
on the RAAB Repository (summarized in S3 Table) show that 42% of all surgeries in Yemen
resulted in aphakia, compared to <1% of surgeries in Argentina, 3% in Kenya and 9% in
Malawi.[30] High rates of aphakia persist in Yemen, with 31% of surgeries undertaken within
three years of the 2009 survey resulting in aphakia. Understanding why this technique persists
in some settings, and identifying strategies to increase the proportion of surgeries where IOLs
are used will likely improve post-operative visual acuity and thus eCSC.
In addition to being a valuable UEH indicator, eCSC meets many of the criteria of UHC
tracer indicators[26] as blindness and visual impairment from cataract are prevalent in people
over the age of 50 years,[12] and have clear diagnostic criteria and effective treatment.[17]
Also, data collection can readily occur through rapid, low-cost population-based surveys[29]
and the UEH Action Plan has called for Member States to undertake more RAAB surveys to
plan and monitor eye care services.[14] Through the RAAB Repository an increasing amount
of comparable data are available from different settings,[30] including examples of national
follow-up surveys that monitor change over time.[39] eCSC can be generated retrospectively
from data previously collected, as demonstrated here. In future, it can be calculated easily from
standard data collected in RAAB and other visual impairment surveys, and to ensure consis-
tent and comparable results, the calculation of eCSC could be incorporated into the automated
RAAB analysis.
One of the current shortcomings for eCSC to be a UHC tracer indicator is the lack of
national-level data from many countries. This may soon be overcome through the ongoing
development of a smartphone application (http://www.peekvision.org/) to undertake compre-
hensive eye examinations. As demonstrated here, the calculation of eCSC requires visual acuity
assessment and detection of operable and operated cataract. There has already been a call for
visual acuity assessment to be added to UHC monitoring tools.[7] Peek has already been val-
idated for visual acuity assessment,[40] and found to be easy to use by general health workers.
[41] Identifying operated and operable cataract currently requires an eye health worker with
relatively extensive skills and experience, but Peek will enable general health workers to under-
take this assessment using the smartphone and calling on remote support when necessary.
This advance will allow eCSC data collection to occur within general household surveys, and
vastly increase the availability of national-level eCSC data.
It is recommended that each country set its own UHC targets based on local priorities and
realities,[42] and the same is true for eCSC. At the global level, targets can be established by
combining coverage and outcome targets, as shown in Table 1. Of the 20 surveys analysed,
four (20%) met these targets, identifying good (Iran 75.7%, Argentina 75.3%, Pakistan 71.3%)
or satisfactory (Uruguay 63.8%) eCSC results. If eCSC is monitored in conjunction with CSC

Table 1. Proposed global targets for effective cataract surgical coverage (eCSC)
Coverage (CSC) Target (%) Outcome (CSOGood) Target (%) eCSC Target
95 X 95 = 90 90 Excellent
90 X 90 = 81 8089 Very good
85 X 85 = 72 7079 Good
80 X 80 = 64 6069 Satisfactory
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342.t001

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 9 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

(as depicted in Fig 2) it will be possible to identify whether coverage, outcome, or both need
improvement. Our sensitivity analysis showed that the time since surgery occurred (3 versus
>3 years) did not alter eCSC results, so all surgeries can be included in the calculation of
eCSC.
The components of eCSC provide a flexible indicator that can adapt to different health sys-
tem contexts. Just as eCSC can be calculated using different visual acuity cut-offs for operable
cataract, it can also be calculated using different visual acuity cut-offs for surgical outcome
e.g. in some settings 6/12 or better may be more appropriate than the more lenient 6/18 cut-off
used here. Similarly, coverage with good or borderline visual outcomes can be calculated
(i.e. 6/60 or better).
This analysis must be interpreted in the context of its limitations. Datasets were available
from only 20 of the 74 countries in which RAAB surveys have been undertaken, the available
datasets were not always the most recently undertaken study within a country, and less than
half were based on a national sample frame. The findings therefore do not necessarily reflect
the current national eCSC levels in these countries. What we have providedby defining and
demonstrating eCSC analysisis a method of monitoring both coverage and quality of cata-
ract services in one indicator, and a means of ongoing monitoring as more data become avail-
able. A further limitation was the inability to assess forms of inequality beyond gender, as
other social variables are not routinely collected in RAAB surveys. More social variables will be
included in RAABs in future, and more comprehensive assessment of inequality in eCSC (and
other outcomes) will be possible.
We have defined and demonstrated eCSC, a measure that combines coverage with quality of
cataract surgery, providing a valuable indicator for monitoring UEH. eCSC builds on the
strengths of CSCit can be calculated from data collected in existing eye health surveys, and in
future will be incorporated into standard RAAB analysis outputs. It also has the potential to dem-
onstrate inequities in service access and outcomes, and to be incorporated into general household
surveys for more widespread data collection. As cataract development is an inevitable part of
aging, eCSC provides an objective, easy-to-measure UHC indicator of services for the elderly.

Supporting information
S1 Table. Code used to derive variables for analysis.
(PDF)
S2 Table. Summary of included studies and results.
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Proportion of surgery resulting in aphakia in each location.
(DOCX)

Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the investigators of the surveys included in this analysis, and thank them for
making their data publicly accessible.

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: JR CG.
Data curation: JR.
Formal analysis: JR AL.

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 10 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

Methodology: JR CG AL PA HL AF.
Writing original draft: JR.
Writing review & editing: CG AL PA HL AF.

References
1. Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988; 260(12):17438. PMID:
3045356
2. World Health Organization. What is universal coverage? 2016. Available from: http://www.who.int/
health_financing/universal_coverage_definition/en/.
3. Donabedian A. The seven pillars of quality. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1990; 114(11):11158. PMID:
2241519
4. World Health Organization. Background paper for the technical consultation on effective coverage of
health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
5. Hogan D, Hosseinpoor AR, Boerma T. Developing an index for the coverage of essential health ser-
vices. Technical note for World health statistics 2016. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
6. Bryce J, Arnold F, Blanc A, Hancioglu A, Newby H, Requejo J, et al. Measuring coverage in MNCH:
new findings, new strategies, and recommendations for action. PLoS Med. 2013; 10(5):e1001423. doi:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1001423 PMID: 23667340
7. Boerma T, AbouZahr C, Evans D, Evans T. Monitoring intervention coverage in the context of universal
health coverage. PloS Med. 2014; 11(9):e1001728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001728 PMID:
25243586
8. Ng M, Fullman N, Dieleman JL, Flaxman AD, Murray CJ, Lim SS. Effective coverage: a metric for moni-
toring universal health coverage. PloS Med. 2014; 11(9):e1001730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.
1001730 PMID: 25243780
9. Hodgins S, DAgostino A. The qualitycoverage gap in antenatal care: toward better measurement of
effective coverage. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014; 2(2):17381. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-13-00176 PMID:
25276575
10. Campbell J, Buchan J, Cometto G, David B, Dussault G, Fogstad H, et al. Human resources for health
and universal health coverage: fostering equity and effective coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;
91(11):85363. doi: 10.2471/BLT.13.118729 PMID: 24347710
11. World Health Organization and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World
Bank. Monitoring progress towards universal health coverage at country and global levels: A Frame-
work. Discussion Paper. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2013.
12. Bourne RR, Stevens GA, White RA, Smith JL, Flaxman SR, Price H, et al. Causes of vision loss world-
wide, 19902010: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2013; 1(6):e33949. doi: 10.1016/S2214-
109X(13)70113-X PMID: 25104599
13. He W, Goodkind D, Kowal P. An Aging World: 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2016.
14. World Health Organization. Universal Eye Health: A global action plan 20142019. Geneva: World
Health Organization, 2013.
15. World Health Assembly. Towards universal eye health: A global action plan 20142019. Resolution
66.4, 24 May 2013. Geneva: World Health Assembly, 2013.
16. Grimes CE, Henry JA, Maraka J, Mkandawire NC, Cotton M. Cost-effectiveness of surgery in low-and
middle-income countries: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2014; 38(1):25263. doi: 10.1007/
s00268-013-2243-y PMID: 24101020
17. Riaz Y, Mehta JS, Wormald R, Evans JR, Foster A, Ravilla T, et al. Surgical interventions for age-
related cataract. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001323.
18. Essue BM, Li Q, Hackett ML, Keay L, Iezzi B, Tran KD, et al. A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of
Quality of Life and Economic Outcomes after Cataract Surgery in Vietnam: The VISIONARY Study.
Ophthalmology. 2014; 121(11):213846. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.014 PMID: 25012931
19. Finger RP, Kupitz DG, Fenwick E, Balasubramaniam B, Ramani RV, Holz FG, et al. The impact of suc-
cessful cataract surgery on quality of life, household income and social status in South India. PloS One.
2012; 7(8):e44268. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044268 PMID: 22952945
20. Danquah L, Kuper H, Eusebio C, Rashid MA, Bowen L, Foster A, et al. The Long Term Impact of Cata-
ract Surgery on Quality of Life, Activities and Poverty: Results from a Six Year Longitudinal Study in

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 11 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

Bangladesh and the Philippines. PloS One. 2014; 9(4):e94140. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094140
PMID: 24747192
21. Mock CN, Donkor P, Gawande A, Jamison DT, Kruk ME, Debas HT. Essential surgery: key messages
from Disease Control Priorities. Lancet. 2015; 385(9983):220919. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)
60091-5 PMID: 25662414
22. Henry JA, Bem C, Grimes C, Borgstein E, Mkandawire N, Thomas WE, et al. Essential surgery: the way
forward. World J Surg. 2015; 39(4):82232. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2937-9 PMID: 25566979
23. Meara JG, Leather AJ, Hagander L, Alkire BC, Alonso N, Ameh EA, et al. Global Surgery 2030: evi-
dence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015; 386
(9993):569624. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60160-X PMID: 25924834
24. Limburg H, Foster A, Gilbert C, Johnson G, Kyndt M, Myatt M. Routine monitoring of visual outcome of
cataract surgery. Part 2: Results from eight study centres. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89(1):502. doi: 10.
1136/bjo.2004.045369 PMID: 15615746
25. Limburg H, Foster A. Cataract Surgical Coverage: an indicator to measure the impact of cataract inter-
vention programmes. Community Eye Health. 1998; 11(25):36.
26. World Health Organization and The World Bank. Tracking universal health coverage: first global moni-
toring report. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015.
27. Dineen B, Foster A, Faal H. A proposed rapid methodology to assess the prevalence and causes of
blindness and visual impairment. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2006; 13(1):314. doi: 10.1080/
09286580500473787 PMID: 16510344
28. Mathenge W, Bastawrous A, Foster A, Kuper H. The Nakuru posterior segment eye disease study:
methods and prevalence of blindness and visual impairment in Nakuru, Kenya. Ophthalmology. 2012;
119(10):20339. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.04.019 PMID: 22721919
29. Kuper H, Polack S, Limburg H. Rapid assessment of avoidable blindness. Community Eye Health.
2006; 19(60):689. PMID: 17515970
30. Health Information Services. RAAB repository 2014. Available from: http://www.raabdata.info/.
31. World Health Organization. Informal Consultation on Analysis of Blindness Prevention Outcomes.
Geneva: World Health Organization, 1998 Contract No.: WHO/PBL/98.68.
32. Lewallen S, Mousa A, Bassett K, Courtright P. Cataract surgical coverage remains lower in women. Br
J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93(3):2958. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.140301 PMID: 19091848
33. Ahmad K, Zwi AB, Tarantola DJ, Soomro AQ, Baig R, Azam SI. Gendered Disparities in Quality of Cata-
ract Surgery in a Marginalised Population in Pakistan: The Karachi Marine Fishing Communities Eye
and General Health Survey. PloS One. 2015; 10(7):e0131774. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131774
PMID: 26186605
34. Cockburn N, Steven D, Lecuona K, Joubert F, Rogers G, Cook C, et al. Prevalence, Causes and Socio-
Economic Determinants of Vision Loss in Cape Town, South Africa. PLoS One. 2012; 7(2):e30718. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0030718 PMID: 22363476
35. Hosseinpoor AR, Bergen N, Koller T, Prasad A, Schlotheuber A, Valentine N, et al. Equity-oriented
monitoring in the context of universal health coverage. PLoS Med. 2014; 11(9):e1001727. doi: 10.1371/
journal.pmed.1001727 PMID: 25243463
36. Congdon N, Suburaman G-B, Ravilla T, Varga B, Resnikoff S, McLeod J, et al. Transforming research
results into useful tools for global health: BOOST. Lancet Glob Health. 2016; 4(2):e96. doi: 10.1016/
S2214-109X(15)00267-3 PMID: 26823227
37. Limburg H, Foster A, Gilbert C, Johnson G, Kyndt M. Routine monitoring of visual outcome of cataract
surgery. Part 1: Development of an instrument. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89(1):459. doi: 10.1136/bjo.
2004.045351 PMID: 15615745
38. Yorston D, Gichuhi S, Wood M, Foster A. Does prospective monitoring improve cataract surgery out-
comes in Africa? Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86(5):5437. PMID: 11973251
39. Duerksen R, Limburg H, Lansingh VC, Silva JC. Review of blindness and visual impairment in Para-
guay: changes between 1999 and 2011. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2013; 20(5):3017. doi: 10.3109/
09286586.2013.821497 PMID: 24070101
40. Bastawrous A, Rono HK, Livingstone IA, Weiss HA, Jordan S, Kuper H, et al. Development and valida-
tion of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (peek acuity) for clinical practice and community-based
fieldwork. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015; 133(8):9307. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.1468 PMID:
26022921
41. Lodhia V, Karanja S, Lees S, Bastawrous A. Acceptability, Usability, and Views on Deployment of
Peek, a Mobile Phone mHealth Intervention for Eye Care in Kenya: Qualitative Study. JMIR Mhealth
Uhealth. 2016; 4(2):e30. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4746 PMID: 27160779

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 12 / 13

 Effective cataract surgical coverage

42. World Health Organization. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Final report of
the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage. Geneva: World Health Orga-
nization, 2014.

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172342 March 1, 2017 13 / 13