You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

World views
Visual impairment and blindness in Europe and their prevention
  1. I Kocur1,
  2. S Resnikoff2
  1. 1Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
  2. 2World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to: I Kocur, Charles University, University Eye Clinic, Srobarova 50, 100 34 Prague, Czech Republic; ivokocur{at}ti.cz

Abstract

The European region currently differs in many aspects, such as political, socioeconomic, and geographical. After substantial political changes at the beginning of the 1990s, the majority of central and eastern European countries started to rebuild their healthcare systems. It is apparent that eastern Europe represents a highly diverse region where the difference among countries broadens year after year. In highly industrialised countries of Europe, the leading causes of childhood serious visual loss are lesions of the central nervous system, congenital anomalies and retinal disorders. In the middle income countries of Europe, congenital cataract, glaucoma and, mainly, retinopathy of prematurity are highly expressed. The major cause of serious visual loss in adults in industrialised countries is age related macular degeneration. The other conditions comprise cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, and uncorrected/uncorrectable refractive errors, along with low vision. In people of working age, diabetic retinopathy, retinopathy pigmentosa, and optic atrophy are the most frequently reported causes of serious visual loss. In the middle income countries of Europe, advanced cataract, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy are more frequently observed.

  • visual impairment
  • blindness
  • Europe

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.86.7.716

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Some 870 million people live within the European region of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 51 countries covering an area from Greenland in the west to the Pacific coast of the Russian Federation in the east. This vast region currently differs in many aspects, such as political, socioeconomic, and geographical. Until recently, Europe was divided along strict political lines, culminating in the cold war of the 1960s and 1970s. In the late 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s, the continent experienced a wave of democratisation of political systems, sweeping away socialist regimes in its central and eastern parts. Political turmoil followed in some countries, enveloping several regions in war conditions, and significantly broadening the range of socioeconomic diversity of the continent.1

    HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS IN EUROPE

    The political situation in Europe within the past decades has had a direct impact on the development of national healthcare systems.2,3 Two essential patterns could be identified. Healthcare systems in Western Europe followed the liberalisation of national economies, being built on the parallel development of state and private healthcare services. Although the country's healthcare plans carry specific national features, the majority of western European countries attained the highest standards of healthcare services when compared worldwide.4 The financing of health care partly relies on the active participation of citizens through healthcare insurance systems. Current healthcare cost escalation induced by the introduction of expensive technologies, however, had a direct impact on financial requirements in order to maintain a high standard of healthcare services in the long run. This situation affects politicians, national healthcare providers, and policymakers. An imbalance in healthcare systems leads, for instance, in some countries to a shortage of healthcare personnel, and to a growing waiting time to see specialists.

    The socialist economies of the East before the 1990s promoted state operated healthcare policies. Politically motivated populist efforts were aimed at increasing the availability of healthcare services and at eliminating barriers to their affordability. The latter aspect was fulfilled by financing healthcare services from state budgets allowing for free services and care. This policy led to the establishment of principles of prevention, regular healthcare checks of the population, and the increased availability of healthcare services based on their geographical planning. A discrepancy between the actual economic conditions of the countries and generous services provided led to the bitter end of these systems following the collapse of the majority of socialist economies. After substantial political changes at the beginning of the 1990s, the majority of central and eastern European countries started to rebuild their healthcare systems. Only some of these countries have already introduced healthcare insurance systems (for instance, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia), some are in the process of transition towards it (Bulgaria, Poland), while many others maintain healthcare financing from the state operated budget.

    Regarding the newly independent states (NIS), they inherited a highly centralised system organised in line with the Semashko model. The whole population of the former USSR was granted free medical assistance regardless of social status and had access to a comprehensive range of secondary and tertiary care. Nevertheless, the quality did not comply with Western standards, and unofficial gratuity payments were commonly expected, especially for secondary and tertiary care. The system at the end of the Soviet era may also be characterised as one in which individuals in contact with the healthcare system were discouraged from taking personal responsibility. This applied equally to the population which, having been assured of free and unlimited health care, had little sense of responsibility for their health status, and to the medical professionals who had no incentive to control costs or deliver quality service.

    In Europe more than anywhere, the current level of healthcare services reflects the current status of a country's economy, market liberalisation, and the level of medical education. It is apparent that Eastern Europe and NIS represent a highly diverse region where the difference among countries broadens year after year.5–7

    EYE CARE IN EUROPE

    Countries of the western European region generally follow the pattern characteristic of the most industrialised regions of the world. In principle, eye care services are provided by state or private institutions. Refraction and basic ophthalmic care are in some countries partly in the hands of optometrists and opticians, while medical professionals specialising in ophthalmology in addition to refraction deal with eye diseases and provide ophthalmic surgery. This contrasts with the conditions in the countries in the eastern European region, which share similarities in eye care services. They apply to eye care personnel, their educational curricula, establishments providing eye care, and their financial conditions.

    It is a commonly observed fact that there are large numbers of physicians in the eastern European region, and this applies to ophthalmology too. The number of ophthalmologists may be as high as 100 eye doctors per one million inhabitants. This situation has several implications. A high percentage of ophthalmologists are surgically inactive, providing first line diagnostic services and medical treatment in their offices. Because of the quite dense coverage of inhabited regions of eastern Europe by physicians trained in ophthalmology, the number of optometrists is substantially lower or their services are almost non-existent. There is a good market for opticians instead, who often also offer a basic eye examination. In many countries, physicians employed by state healthcare institutions are remarkably underpaid, which decreases their motivation. There is a rather vague resident and fellow postgraduate educational system compared with the current practice of western Europe. However, many countries are undergoing a process of transition in their postgraduate education in ophthalmology, approaching western European standards (for instance, Hungary). In the majority of eastern European countries, young physicians gain their postgraduate education in ophthalmology during the first years of their employment contract at an eye department. The programme is usually not particularly structured on a daily basis, and their progress reflects their own initiative. In the majority of countries, certification in ophthalmology is based on examining the candidate by a state board. Ophthalmic nurses are recruited among general certified nurses. Their knowledge is mostly based on hands-on experience gained during the first months of their work contract. There is a limited number of specialised schools for optometrists, while schools for opticians are more accessible.

    In central and eastern Europe, the majority of inpatient eye care establishments are state owned. This applies particularly to university eye departments. Smaller local offices are often private. Patients rarely pay the full cost of their treatment. If hospitalised, insured patients receive eye care free of charge (for instance in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia), or they may pay for certain components of treatment (for instance, for intraocular lenses in Russia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan). In the majority of countries, patients pay a certain percentage of the cost of their medicaments. The transition of economic systems in eastern Europe to market economy has directly affected healthcare financing. Although the majority of countries are following the path leading to more healthy economies in the future, the burden of currently unstable eastern European markets is strongly felt by state healthcare providers.

    AVAILABLE DATA ON VISUAL IMPAIRMENT AND BLINDNESS IN EUROPE

    The past two decades brought much new published information on blindness epidemiology in Europe.8–14 However, there are still many countries suffering from lack of available data on prevalence, incidence, and causes of visual impairment in children as well as in the whole population.

    The studies which are mentioned here represent some of the recent research projects aiming at obtaining data on prevalence and causes of blindness in larger population samples in Europe. Their methodology mostly followed WHO definitions of visual impairment (a corrected visual acuity of less than 6/18 in the better eye), severe visual impairment (a corrected visual acuity of less than 6/60 in the better eye), and blindness (a corrected visual acuity of less then 3/60 in the better eye or a visual field of less than 10 degrees).15 However, it is apparent that for practical reasons, the population survey conductors identify blind individuals by performing visual acuity tests rather than by examining visual field loss.

    In some European countries, there have been established live registers of the blind which may be a source of valuable epidemiological data. However, some recently conducted research illustrates that only a small proportion of visually handicapped people who are eligible to be registered as partially sighted or blind might actually be registered as such.16–19 In other European countries, the only way of obtaining some more specific information on causes of visual impairment is to carry out prevalence studies, blind school, or birth cohort studies.20–22

    VISUAL IMPAIRMENT AND BLINDNESS IN CHILDREN

    Because the prevalence of blindness in children is lower than in the whole population, the sample size of a population based study would have to be adequately larger to obtain reliable estimates. This would be impractical. Therefore, most information concerning the causes of visual impairment in children is obtained from examining children in schools for the blind or from registers of blind children. Since the standardised WHO methodology and UNESCO definition of childhood (an individual up to 16 years of age) have been introduced, the difficulties in comparing the study results are gradually diminishing.23 Considering the presently available results of various studies, it has been estimated that there are, at minimum, 1.5 million blind children in the world; 72 000 of them live in Europe, the United States, and Japan.24 The available data indicate that the prevalence of childhood blindness in Europe is between 0.1 and 0.41 per 1000 children. Retinal disorders, optic atrophy, and lesions of the higher visual pathways are the main anatomical causes of visual loss in children. The most frequent retinal affections are hereditary retinal dystrophies and retinopathy of prematurity. Lesions of the higher visual pathways are often associated with other handicaps caused by more affections of the central nervous system. In about one third of eye malformations and anomalies, the aetiological factors remain unknown.25–34

    There are also data available on prevalence and incidence of particular eye conditions and risk factors in children, such as cataract,35 retinopathy of prematurity,36–38 congenital anomalies of the globe and hereditary eye diseases,39–42 and ophthalmia neonatorum.43 It was reported that up to the age of 2 years, infants of low birth weight or infants requiring special care in the neonatal period had a greater risk of vision and ocular defects than the remainder of the population.32

    The most recent comprehensive studies came from Scandinavia.44–52 In 1996, a prospective register study was published dealing with the incidence of registered visual impairment in the Nordic child population of 3.8 million. Only children with visual acuity worse than 6/18 were involved. The leading cause of visual impairment was disorders of the central nervous system (44%): mainly cerebral amblyopia (23%) and secondary optic nerve atrophy (19%). These were followed by eye disorders such as congenital anomalies (cataract, optic nerve atrophy, albinism, and congenital optic nerve hypoplasia) in 35% of the children. The less frequent causes were various retinal dystrophies (10%); retinopathy of prematurity was present in 4%. Among the aetiological factors, the majority were prenatal (64%). In 1992, the same Nordic study group of ophthalmologists, called “NORDSYN,” published data based on an extended multinational review of blind registers. They estimated the prevalence of childhood blindness among the Nordic population within the interval 0.15–0.41/1000 children. The main causes of blindness were optic atrophy, retinopathy of prematurity, cerebral amblyopia, congenital hypoplasia of the optic nerve, and congenital cataract. These studies followed assessment of the causes of blindness in Danish children based on analysis of the national register for visually impaired children as of 1985. Optic nerve atrophy, cerebral amblyopia, retinal degenerations, congenital nystagmus, and congenital cataract were the principal causes of blindness. A report on the causes of visual impairment in the child population in Iceland contributed to the assessment of the current situation in northern Europe.53

    Results of the national survey in the Republic of Ireland were published in 1991.54 One hundred and seventy two children were examined; the aetiology in 56% of children was considered to be of genetic or other prenatal factors. The perinatal period, as the time after damage occurred, was represented by 27%, and childhood by 13%. The two most frequent single causative agents were prematurity (11%) and birth asphyxia (11%). The study showed that about 30% of the causes of blindness were potentially avoidable. The leading causes of blindness were optic atrophy, optic nerve hypoplasia, cortical blindness, and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). The first three often coexisted in the same patient.

    The largest cohort study was initiated in 1970 in England.55 A national representative sample was studied, and 85% of children underwent visual assessment by the age of 10 years. The prevalence of childhood severe visual impairment (visual acuity less than 6/60 in the better eye) was estimated between 0.34–0.40/1000 children. Among the main causes of severe visual impairment were congenital cataract and congenital nystagmus, responsible for almost two thirds of all cases. Based on reports from other studies conducted in Britain, the leading causes of serious visual loss in children are congenital cataract, cortical visual impairment, optic atrophy, disorders of the retina, and congenital ocular anomalies.56–58

    In Hungary, a population based study was carried out to examine all registered visually impaired children aged 6–14 years. The principal causes of severe visual impairment in children were congenital cataract (17%), congenital eye abnormalities (15%), high myopia (13%), retinopathy of prematurity (11%), retinal degenerations (10%), congenital anomalies (10%), nystagmus (9%), and optic atrophy (7%). Prevalence of severe visual impairment in children in Hungary was estimated between 0.40–0.45/1000.59

    In 1998, pupils attending 10 primary blind schools in the Czech Republic were examined to determine causes of severe visual impairment and blindness.60 A total of 229 children aged 6–15 years were involved in this study. A positive family history of the same condition was found in 7% of the children. Onset of visual loss up to the first year of age was determined in 93%. Twenty nine per cent of the children suffered from some additional disability. Retinopathy of prematurity was the major cause of visual impairment in examined children (42%). It was followed by eye abnormalities of unknown aetiology since birth (28%), hereditary disease (9%), cataract (8%), and glaucoma (5%). A majority of children with cataract and glaucoma had undergone surgery in the past. It was established that 59% of the conditions leading to severe visual impairment were preventable or treatable.

    The most comprehensive study describing causes of childhood blindness in the Slovak Republic was published in 1990.61 The authors analysed the causes of visual loss in children from two large blind schools. The main causes of blindness were retinopathy of prematurity (24%), retinal dystrophy (17%), optic atrophy (15%), and microphthalmos and anophthalmos (8%).

    In Uzbekistan, 506 children attending schools for the blind were identified as severely visually handicapped or blind, during the blind school survey conducted in 1998.62 The most frequent eye conditions were cataract or aphakia (36%), retinal dystrophies (24%), and microphthalmos (23%), followed by optic nerve disorders, corneal scars (6%), and glaucoma (5%). There was no child with retinopathy of prematurity; no significant problem of vitamin A deficiency was found.

    It is apparent that the findings reported from different parts of Europe vary remarkably. The main causes of visual loss in children, as identified in some of the above mentioned reports, are summarised in Table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Causes of serious visual loss in children in Europe

    VISUAL IMPAIRMENT AND BLINDNESS IN ADULTS

    The major cause of blindness in industrialised countries is age related macular degeneration.63–72 The other conditions comprise cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and uncorrected/uncorrectable refractive errors, along with low vision. In people of working age, diabetic retinopathy, retinopathy pigmentosa, and optic atrophy are the most frequently reported causes of blindness.73–79 Based on their higher life expectancy, it is highly probable that older females bear a proportionally higher magnitude of blindness than males. The relation to sex and blindness in Europe deserves further analysis.80

    The Rotterdam Study was carried out in the Netherlands during the 1990s.81 Almost 8000 people underwent eye examination. The prevalence of blindness ranged from 0.1% in the 55–64 year olds to 3.9% in the 85 years of age and over. The principal causes of blindness in people younger than 75 years were myopic degeneration and optic neuropathy. In people aged 75 or older, age related macular degeneration represented the main cause of blindness, and senile cataract was the principal cause of visual impairment. The main causes of blindness in the whole population sample were age related macular degeneration (58%), primary open angle glaucoma (8%), and cataract, myopic degeneration, and optic neuropathy (6% each).

    One of the studies to detect the predominant causes of blindness was conducted in Scotland in the early 1980s.82 The data were obtained through analysis of blind registration forms in the western part of Scotland. In the 20–44 year olds, the five most frequent causes of blindness were diabetic retinopathy, myopia, optic nerve atrophy, uveitis, and glaucoma. In the 45–64 year olds, they were diabetic retinopathy, senile macular degeneration, glaucoma, myopia, and optic nerve atrophy; at 65 years of age and over, the five most frequent causes of blindness were senile macular degeneration, glaucoma, cataract, diabetic retinopathy, and myopia. The general pattern of overall prevalence of the most common causes of blindness in the region comprised senile macular degeneration (30%), glaucoma (15%), cataract (10%), diabetic retinopathy (8%), and myopic degeneration (6%). There were remarkable differences in the relation of sex to blindness.

    At the beginning of the 1990s, a comprehensive study came from Italy reviewing available information that was collected during the 1980s.83 The data were extrapolated from three independent sources: the national household health survey, the national registry of the blind, and the welfare list of the ministry of the interior. The main causes of blindness in Italy were retinal diseases (31%), cataract (21%), optic nerve affections (10%), glaucoma (7%), and corneal opacities and uveal disorders (5% each). The prevalence of blindness was higher in southern regions, and many of the eye conditions causing visual impairment were preventable by early diagnosis and treatment. According to their frequency, the main eye conditions causing blindness in southern Italy were senile cataract, myopia, corneal opacities, diabetic retinopathy, surgical aphakia, and open angle glaucoma. The eye conditions causing blindness in northern Italy were myopia, senile cataract, diabetic retinopathy, corneal opacities, surgical aphakia, and open angle glaucoma. A variation between northern and southern regions was explained by socioeconomic differences in Italy at that time.

    One of the rare population based surveys in eastern Europe was conducted in Bulgaria in 1995.84 All adults over age 40 years living in Sofia and the surrounding district were involved. The prevalence of blindness was 0.49%. The main causes of blindness were cataract (20%), age related macular degeneration (20%), glaucoma (20%), optic nerve atrophy (10%), and diabetic retinopathy (7%). An analysis of the causes of visual impairment revealed that the most frequent eye disorders were cataract (51%), senile macular degeneration (14%), diabetic retinopathy (10%), glaucoma (6%), and a combination of them. The results indicate that senile cataract was the leading cause of bilateral visual impairment and blindness in the Bulgarian population.

    In Slovakia, data on prevalence and causes of blindness were collected from several sources. The most frequent causes of blindness were senile cataract (23%), myopia (23%), glaucoma (17%), diabetic retinopathy (9%), and age related macular degeneration (8%).85

    Some of the findings are summarised in Table 2.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Causes of serious visual loss in adults in Europe

    PREVENTION OF BLINDNESS IN EUROPE

    In the light of the reported major causes of visual loss in Europe, public health efforts should focus on the following five conditions: cataract, diabetic retinopathy; glaucoma, retinopathy of prematurity, uncorrected refractive errors, and low vision. Not only do these conditions represent the most frequently reported causes of visual disability in Europe, but they can also be prevented or cured through proved cost effective interventions. In other words, they represent the major causes of avoidable blindness and visual impairment.15

    Cataract

    Cataract is still a cause of avoidable blindness in the elderly in some regions of Eastern Europe: the Balkan Peninsula, the Caucasus region, some rural areas in Russia and in former USSR central Asian republics. However, an increasing backlog of unoperated cataract has also been observed in some western European countries, such as the United Kingdom.86–96 In Europe—as elsewhere—visual loss due to unoperated cataract is mainly the result of the poor performance of the local health system, aggravated by the lack of public awareness. In countries where the rate of intraocular lens implantation is still low, the cataract extraction itself does not substantially improve vision. Availability and affordability of spectacles has a final impact on the patient when evaluating the actual visual outcome of the surgery. In some parts of eastern Europe, the number of cataract surgeries per million population per year is significantly lower than in western Europe. This low utilisation of cataract surgery may have several reasons, including high cost and poor quality of the services provided, as indicated by the absence of waiting lists. However, further studies are necessary in order to assess what is the actual coverage of surgical needs and what are the major barriers to the uptake of cataract surgery.

    Diabetic retinopathy

    Diabetic retinopathy represents an issue of growing importance. The industrialised countries of western Europe, together with countries such as the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, have been considering diabetic retinopathy among the leading causes of avoidable blindness in their population during the last decades.97–107 In the above mentioned parts of Europe, early diagnosis and systematic follow up of diabetic patients have been promoted. In rural areas of former socialist countries of the Balkan Peninsula, and in some former USSR member countries, healthcare services providing early detection and/or retinal laser treatment are not often available. In these areas, the appropriate equipment for eye care providers needs to be taken care of first.

    Glaucoma

    Glaucoma is an important cause of blindness worldwide.108–118 A continuous effort to improve early detection and appropriate treatment is the main strategy used in Europe to reduce the number of patients suffering from visual loss caused by the late diagnosis of glaucoma. The poor compliance of patients is another challenge. In this respect, further efforts to increase awareness about this eye condition among the population is a priority.

    Avoidable blindness in children

    Avoidable blindness in children in the European continent is synonymous mainly with retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).36,119–125 While some of the most industrialised countries face an increase in the number of babies of extremely low birth weight, the situation in the eastern part of the continent differs. In this region, patients are either suffering from ROP associated visual impairment affecting low birthweight babies (mostly located in the formerly socialist countries in central Europe), or the issue of ROP is not a substantial health concern because of a lack of developed perinatal care (in places such as the rural regions of Russia and former USSR republics of central Asia). Preventive measures must be adopted accordingly, particularly in countries of central and eastern Europe, where substantial changes in this situation may be expected. Improved perinatal services in central European countries will lead to an increase in the number of babies of extremely low birth weight, creating a risk of a new wave in the incidence of retinopathy of prematurity. Based on observations in some rural regions of the Balkan Peninsula and some regions of the former USSR, screening for retinopathy of prematurity, essential equipment, and appropriate training of ophthalmologists and neonatalogists need to be developed.

    LOW VISION AND REFRACTION

    Satisfactory refraction and low vision services contribute to the improvement of visual acuity in patients affected by various eye conditions.126–128 Low vision services reflect the current socioeconomic status of the country. According to publications available, there are not many reports from Europe indicating substantial gaps in the availability of basic refraction services. However, despite the number of eye care practitioners providing refractive services as part of the various government funded healthcare programmes and low cost supply systems available to those in need, the levels of visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive errors might be disappointingly high, as was demonstrated in Australia. This is another area where studies should be conducted in order to assess the actual situation, particularly in the elderly and the socially disadvantaged.

    Special attention should also be paid to the availability of aphakic glasses for patients in areas where intracapsular cataract extraction is still performed. This is the case in some regions in the Balkan Peninsula and in some regions of the former USSR.

    Low vision care services is another extremely important, yet frequently neglected, component of the eye care system, which will need dramatic development.

    The European population is rapidly ageing and the incidence of age related eye diseases will increase accordingly, leading to an escalating demand for low vision care services.

    CONCLUSION

    Europe is a continent showing impressive regional variation. The prevention of visual impairment in children is particularly vital to a substantially higher lifetime of blindness when compared with adults. In highly industrialised countries, the leading causes of childhood blindness are lesions of the central nervous system, congenital anomalies, and retinal disorders (mostly retinal dystrophies). In the middle income countries of Europe, congenital cataract, glaucoma and, mainly, retinopathy of prematurity are highly expressed. In the less developed countries, for instance some parts of the former USSR central Asian republics, particular attention should be paid to hereditary disorders caused by consanguinity within smaller communities as well as to acquired conditions in childhood.

    A review of the current status of eye care services in Europe indicates that the situation varies remarkably between various parts of the continent. Western Europe is composed of highly industrialised countries, the central European region showing a more economically successful transition from the former socialist system, and the eastern European region still going though serious economic difficulties while transforming their healthcare systems under the new economic conditions. Therefore, specific strategies have to be designed in order to take into consideration local constraints and opportunities.

    However, in all three regions efforts have to be made as there is an unacceptable amount of unnecessary blindness everywhere. Even in the most industrialised countries there are pockets of underprivileged populations that have limited access to eye care. Everywhere there are patients losing their sight because of lack of awareness of a treatment actually available. In most of the countries, much more could be done with the existing resources. Healthcare reforms are in progress in the eastern European countries, giving an excellent opportunity to implement changes in the eye care system, making it more efficient and more affordable to all those in need. “Vision 2020—the right to sight,” the global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness recently launched by the WHO and the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, provides an excellent opportunity to foster these changes through new partnerships where eye care professionals should have a major role. Europe offers unprecedented chances for professionals to share efforts, allowing for hands-on experience exchange and cooperation.129–134 After decades of political disputes, the way is now open for broad international cooperation in medicine and a more effective utilisation of resources. These chances should not be missed.

    REFERENCES

    1. ↵
      European Health for All Series. Health 21: the Health for all policy framework for the WHO European Region; No 6, WHO, Copenhagen. 1999.
    2. ↵
      Calvocoressi P. World politics since 1945. 7th ed. New York: Longman Publishing 1997:207–357.
    3. ↵
      Bash PF. Textbook on international health. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press 1999:370–454.
    4. ↵
      The World Health Report 2000. Health systems: improving performance. Geneva: WHO, 2000.
    5. ↵
      Instituto del Tercer Mundo. The world guide 1999/2000. 1st ed. Oxford: New Internationalis Publications, 1999.
    6. World Bank. Investing in health. World development report. New York: World Bank, 1993.
    7. ↵
      The World Health Report. Life in the 21st century—a vision for all. Geneva: WHO, 1998:47.
    8. ↵
      Thylefors B. Some global aspects of blindness. Int Ophthalmol 1982;5:127–36.
    9. Albert DM, Jakobiec FA. Principles and practice of ophthalmology. 1st ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1994:782–90, 2799–812.
    10. Thylefors B, Negrel AD, Pararajasegaram R, et al. Available data on blindness. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1995;2:5–39.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. Thompson JR, Rosenthal AR. Epidemiology of world blindness. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1990;1:649–53.
      OpenUrl
    12. Thylefors B. The World Health Organization's programme for the prevention of blindness. Int Ophthalmol 1990;14:211–19.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. Thylefors B. A global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:90–3.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      World Health Organization. Strategies for the prevention of blindness in national programmes. 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO, 1997.
    15. ↵
      World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. Tenth revision. Vol 1. Geneva: WHO, 1992:457.
    16. ↵
      Graham PA, Wallace J, Welsby E, et al. Evaluation of postal detection of registrable blindness. Br J Prev Soc Med 1968;22:238–41.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. Wormald R, Evans J. Registration of blind and partially sighted people. Br J Ophthalmol 1994;78:733–4.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    18. Robinson R, Deutsch J, Jones HS, et al. Unrecognised and unregistered visual impairment. Br J Ophthalmol 1994;78:736–40.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      Thompson A, Du L, Rosenthal AR. Recent trends in registration of blindness and partial sight in Leicestershire. Br J Ophthalmol 1989;73:88–94.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      Minassian DC. Epidemiological methods in prevention of blindness. Eye 1988;2(Suppl):S3–12.
    21. Frederick MA, Javitt JC, Chiang YP. Cost effectiveness of the screening and treatment of retinopathy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992;8:694–707.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      Kupfer C. Ophthalmic research: Impact on prevention of blindness. In: Pararajasegaram R, Rao GN, eds. World blindness and its prevention. Proceedings of the Sixth IAPB General Assembly. Hyderabad: International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, 2001:421–8.
    23. ↵
      Gilbert C, Foster A, Negrel A, et al. Childhood blindness: a new form for recording causes of visual loss in children. Bull World Health Organ 1993;71:485–9.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      Gilbert C. Childhood blindness. In: Johnson GJ, Minassian DC, Weale R, eds. The epidemiology of eye disease. 1st ed. London: Chapman and Hall 1998:181–208.
    25. ↵
      Kohler L. Early detection and screening programs for children in Sweden. In: Macfarlane JA, ed. Progress in child health. Vol 1. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone 1984:230–2.
    26. Foster A, Gilbert C. Epidemiology of visual impairment in children. In: Taylor D, ed. Paediatric ophthalmology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1997.
    27. Gilbert C, Anderton L, Foster A. Prevalence of blindness in children: a review of available data. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1999;6:73–82.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. Gilbert C, Rahi J, Eckstein M, et al. Hereditary disease as a cause of childhood blindness: regional variation. Ophthalmol Genet 1995;16:1–10.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    29. Gilbert CE, Anderton L, Dandona L, et al. Prevalence of visual impairment in children: a review of available data. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1999;6:73–82.
    30. Kohler L, Stigmar G. Vision screening of four year old children. Acta Paediatr Scand 1973;62:17–27.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    31. Phillips CI, Levy AM, Newton M, et al. Blindness in schoolchildren: importance of heredity, congenital cataract, and prematurity. Br J Ophthalmol 1987;71:578–84.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      Stayte M, Johnson A, Wortham C. Ocular and visual defects in a geographically defined population of 2-year-old children. Br J Ophthalmol 1990;74:465–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. Stewart-Brown S L, Butler NR. Visual acuity in a national sample of ten year old children. J Epidemiol Community Health 1985;39:107–12.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      Norrie G. Causes of blindness in children. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1927;5:357–86.
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      Foster A, Gilbert C E, Rahi J. Epidemiology of cataract in childhood: a global perspective. J Cataract Refract Surg 1997;23(Suppl 1):S601–3.
      OpenUrl
    36. ↵
      Gilbert CE, Rahi J, Eckstein M, et al. Retinopathy of prematurity in middle-income countries. Lancet 1997 :12–14.
    37. Fledelius HC. Retinopathy of prematurity. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1990;68:209–13.
      OpenUrl
    38. ↵
      Hansen SE, Rosenberg T, Fledelius HC. Blindness due to retrolental fibroplasis in Denmark 1948–1985. Ugeskr Laeger 1987;149:1839–42.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      Hornby SJ, Gilbert CE, Rahi JK, et al. Regional variation in blindness in children due to microphthalmos, anophthalmos and coloboma. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2000;7:127–38.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. Rosenberg T. Congenital and hereditary visual impairment in Greenland. Arctic Med Res 1994;53:91–6.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. Stoll C, Alembik Y, Dott B, et al. Epidemiology of congenital eye malformations in 131 760 consecutive births. Ophthalmic Paediatr Genet 1992;13:179–86.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      Robinson GC, Jan JE, Kinnis C. Congenital ocular blindness in children, 1945 to 1984. Am J Dis Child 1987;141:1321–4.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. ↵
      Laga M, Meheus A, Piot P. Epidemiology and control of gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum. Bull World Health Organ 1989;67:471–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    44. ↵
      Riise R, Flage T, Hansen E, et al. Visual inpairment in Nordic children. I. Nordic registers and prevalence data. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1992;70:145–54.
      OpenUrl
    45. Rosenberg T, Flage T, Hansen E, et al. Visual impairment in Nordic children. II. Aetiological factors. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1992;70:155–64.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. Hansen E, Flage T, Rosenberg T, et al. Visual impairment in Nordic children. III. Diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1992;70:597–604.
      OpenUrl
    47. Riise R, Flage T, Hansen E, et al. Visual impairment in Nordic children. IV. Sex distribution. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1992;70:605–9.
      OpenUrl
    48. Blohme J, Tornqvist K. Visual impairment in Swedish children. III. Diagnoses. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997;75:681–7.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    49. Lindstedt E. In: Schappert-Kimmijser J, ed. Causes of severe visual impairment in children and their prevention. Doc Ophthalmol 1975;39:287–97.
      OpenUrl
    50. Lindstedt E. Severe visual impairment in Swedish children. Doc Ophthalmol 1972;31:173–202.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    51. Rosenberg T, Flage T, Hansen E, et al. Incidence of registered visual impairment in the Nordic child population. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:49–53.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    52. ↵
      Rosenberg T. Visual impairment in Danish children. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1987;65:110–17.
      OpenUrl
    53. ↵
      Halldorsson S, Bjornsson G. Childhood blindness in Iceland. A study of legally blind and partially seeing children in Iceland 1978. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1980;58:237–42.
      OpenUrl
    54. ↵
      Goggin M, O'Keefe M. Childhood blindness in the Republic of Ireland: a national survey. Br J Ophthalmol 1991;75:425–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    55. ↵
      Stewart-Brown SL, Haslum MN. Partial sight and blindness in children of the 1970 birth cohort at 10 years of age. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1988;42:17–23.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    56. ↵
      Rahi JS, Dezateux C. Epidemiology of visual impairment in Britain. Arch Dis Child 1998;78:381–6.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    57. Bryas JH, Archer DB. Aetiological survey of visually handicapped children in Northern Ireland. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1997;97:26–30.
      OpenUrl
    58. ↵
      Taylor D. The prevalence of visual handicap in children in England and Wales. Child Care, Health and Development 1975;1:291–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    59. ↵
      Czeizel A, Torzs E, Diaz LG, et al. An etiological study on 6 to 14 years old children with severe visual handicap in Hungary. Acta Paediatr Hung 1991;31:365–77.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    60. ↵
      Kocur I, Kuchynka P, Rodny S, et al. Causes of severe visual impairment and blindness in children attending schools for the visually handicapped in the Czech Republic. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:1149–52.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    61. ↵
      Gerinec A, Chynoransky M, Smykova T. Causes of blindness and low vision of children in the Slovak Republic. Cs Oftalmologie 1990;2:121–7.
    62. ↵
      Rogers NK, Gilbert CE, Foster A, et al. Childhood blindness in Uzbekistan. Eye 1999;13( Pt 1):65–70.
    63. ↵
      Evans JR, Wormald RPL. Is the incidence of age-related macular degeneration increasing? Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:9–14
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    64. Evans J. Age-related macular degeneration. In: Johnson GJ, Minassian DC, Weale R, eds. The epidemiology of eye disease. 1st ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 1998:325–47.
    65. International ARM Epidemiological Study Group. An international classification and grading system for age-related maculopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Surv Ophthalmol 1995;39:367–74.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    66. Bressler NM, Bressler SB. Preventive ophthalmology. Age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 1995;102:1206–11.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    67. Vingerling JR, Dielemans I, Hofman, A et al. The prevalence of age related maculopathy in the Rotterdam study. Ophthalmology 1995;102:205–10.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    68. Vingerling JR, Klaver CCW, Hofman A, et al. Epidemiology of age-related maculopathy. Epidemiol Rev 1995;17:347–60.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    69. Eye Disease Case Control Study Group. Risk factors for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1992;110:1701–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    70. Klein R, Klein BEK, Linton KL. Prevalence of age related maculopathy. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1992;99:933–43.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    71. Vinding T. Visual impairment of age-related macular degeneration. An epidemiological study of 1000 aged individuals. Acta Ophthalmol 1990;68:162–7.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    72. ↵
      Vinding T. Age-related macular degeneration. Macular changes, prevalence and sex ratio. An epidemiological study of 1000 aged individuals. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1989;67:609–16.
      OpenUrl
    73. ↵
      Foster A, Johnson GJ. Magnitude and causes of blindness in the developing world. Int Ophthalmol 1990;14:135–40.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    74. Gieser SC, Schein OD. Cataract epidemiology and world blindness. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1993;4:10–13.
      OpenUrl
    75. Goldstein H. The reported demography and causes of blindness throughout the world. Adv Ophthalmol 1980;40:1–90.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    76. Grey RHB, Burns-Cox CJ, Hughes A. Blind and partial sight registration in Avon. Br J Ophthalmol 1989;73:88–94.
    77. Suttorp-Schulten MS, Rothova A. The possible impact of uveitis in blindness: a literature survey. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:844–8.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    78. Weale R. Why does the human visual system age in the way it does? Exp Eye Res 1995;60:49–55.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    79. ↵
      Wormald RP, Wright LA, Courtney P, et al. Visual problems in the elderly population and the implications for services. BMJ 1992;304:1226–9.
    80. ↵
      Abou-Gareeb I, Lewallen S, Basset K, et al. Gender and blindness: a meta-analysis of population-based prevalence surveys. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2001;8:39–56.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    81. ↵
      Klaver CC, Wolfs RC, Vingerling JR, et al. Age-specific prevalence and causes of blindness and visual impairment in an older population: the Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:653–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    82. ↵
      Ghafour IM, Allan D, Foulds W. Common causes of blindness and visual handicap in the west of Scotland. Br J Ophthalmol 1983;67:209–13.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    83. ↵
      Nicolosi A, Marighi PE, Riyyardi P, et al. Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in Italy. Int J Epidemiol 1994;23:359–64.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    84. ↵
      Vassileva P, Gieser SC, Vitale S, et al. Blindness and visual impairment in Western Bulgaria. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1996;3:143–9.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    85. ↵
      Doci J, Juhas T, Klisenbauer D, et al. Occurrence of blindness in Slovak Socialistic Republic. Cs Oftalmologie 1988;4:241–6.
    86. ↵
      Foster A. Cataract and “Vision 2020—the right to sight' initiative. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:635–9.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    87. Minassian DC, Reidy A, Desai P, et al. The deficit in cataract surgery in England and Wales and the escalating problem of visual impairment: epidemiological modeling of the population dynamics of cataract. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:4–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    88. Taylor HR. Cataract: a global public health challenge. In: Pararajasegaram R, Rao GN, eds. World blindness and its prevention. Proceedings of the Sixth IAPB General Assembly. Hyderabad: International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness 2001:37–46
    89. Taylor H. Cataract: how much surgery do we have to do? Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:1–2.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    90. Taylor HR. The epidemiology of age related cataract. Eye 1999;13:445–8.
    91. Gillies M, Brian G, LaNauze J, et al. Modern surgery for global cataract blindness. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:90–2.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    92. Dolin P. Epidemiology of cataract. In: Johnson GJ, Minassian DC, Weale R, eds. The epidemiology of eye disease. 1st ed. London: Chapman and Hall 1998:103–18.
    93. Gieser SC, Vassileva P, West SK. Ophthalmology in Bulgaria. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:687–90.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    94. West SK. Epidemiology of risk factors for age related cataract. Surv Ophthalmol 1995;39:323–34.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    95. Sarma U, Brunner E, Evans JR, et al. Nutrition and the epidemiology of cataract and age-related maculopathy. Eur J Clin Nutr 1994;48:1–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    96. ↵
      Italian American Cataract Study Group. Risk factors for age related cortical, nuclear and posterior subcapsular cataracts. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:541–53.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    97. ↵
      Bailey C. Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy. Focus. London: The Royal College of Ophthalmologists, 2001(15).
    98. Stefansson E, Bek T, Porta M, et al. Screening and prevention of diabetic blindness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2000;78:374–85.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    99. Klein BEK, Klein R. Diabetic retinopathy. In: Johnson GJ, Minassian DC, Weale R, eds. The epidemiology of eye disease. 1st ed. London: Chapman and Hall 1998:311–24.
    100. Sjolie AK, Stephenson J, Aldington S, et al. Retinopathy and vision loss in insulin-dependent diabetes in Europe: The EURODIAB IDDM complications study. Ophthalmology 1997;104:252–60.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    101. Trautner C, Plum F, Icks A, et al. Incidence of blindness in relation to diabetes: a population-based study. Diabetes-Care 1997;20:1147–53.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    102. Gatling W, Howie AJ, Hill RD. An optical practice based diabetic eye screening programme. Diabet Med 1995;12:531–6.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    103. Chew EY, Mills JL, Metzger BE, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Diabetes in early pregnancy study. Metabolic control and progression of retinopathy. Diabetic care 1995;18:631–7.
      OpenUrl
    104. Klein R, Klein BEK, Moss SE. The Wisconsin epidemiological study on diabetic retinopathy. XIV—10 year incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy. Arch ophthalmol 1994;112:1217–28.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    105. Retinopathy Working Party. A protocol for screening for diabetic retinopathy in Europe. Diabet Med 1991;8:263–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    106. Rohan TE, Frost CD, Wald NJ. Prevention of blindness by screening for diabetic retinopathy: a quantitative assessment. BMJ 1989;299:1198–201.
    107. ↵
      Nielsen NV. The prevalence and causes of impaired vision in diabetics. An epidemiological study of diabetes mellitus on the island of Falster, Denmark. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1982;60:677–91.
      OpenUrl
    108. ↵
      Johnson GJ. Rapid survey methodologies for glaucoma. In: Pararajasegaram R, Rao GN, eds. World blindness and its prevention. Proceedings of the Sixth IAPB General Assembly. Hyderabad: International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, 2001:181–8.
    109. Klein BEK, Klein R, Sponsel WE, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1999;99:1499–1504.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    110. Johnson G. The glaucomas. In: Johnson GJ, Minassian DC, Weale R, eds. The epidemiology of eye disease. 1st ed. London: Chapman and Hall 1998:159–80.
    111. Quigley H. The number of persons with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:389–393.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    112. Wilson MR, Martone JF. Epidemiology of open angle glaucoma. In: Ritch R, Shields B, Krupin T, eds. The glaucomas. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby, 1996:753–68.
    113. Gramer E, Tausch M. The risk of the glaucomatous patient. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1995;6:78–88.
      OpenUrl
    114. Wormald RP. Rauf A. Glaucoma screening. J Med Screen 1995;2:109–14.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    115. Coffey M, Reidy A, Wormald R, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in the West of Ireland. Br J Ophthalmol 1993;77:17–21.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    116. Congdon N, Wang F, Tielsch JM. Issues in the epidemiology and population based screening of primary angle closure glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1992;36:411–23.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    117. Thylefors B, Negrel AD. The global impact of glaucoma. Bull World Health Organ 1987;65:477–83.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    118. ↵
      Podgor MJ, Leske MC, Ederer F. Incidence estimates for lens changes, macular changes, open-angle glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Epidemiol 1983;118:206–12.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    119. ↵
      Ng YK, Fielder AR, Shaw DE, et al. Epidemiology of retinopathy of prematurity. Lancet 1988;2:1235–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    120. Billson F. Prevention of blindness in children—human resource development. In: Pararajasegaram R, Rao GN, eds. World blindness and its prevention. Proceedings of the Sixth IAPB General Assembly. Hyderabad: International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, 2001:75–82.
    121. Gilbert C, Foster A. Childhood blindness in the context of Vision 2020—the right to sight. Bull World Health Organ 2001;79:227–32.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    122. Gilbert C. Childhood blindness in the context of the global initiative. In: Pararajasegaram R, Rao GN, eds. World blindness and its prevention. Proceedings of the Sixth IAPB General Assembly. Hyderabad: International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, 2001:71–4.
    123. Rahi JS, Gilbert CE, Foster A, et al. Measuring the burden of childhood blindness. Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83:387–8.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    124. World Health Organization. Prevention of Childhood Blindness. Geneva: WHO, 1992.
    125. ↵
      Willshaw HE. Ophthalmic services for children. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:388.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    126. ↵
      Kraut JA, McCabe P. The problem of low vision. Definition and common problems. In: Albert DM, Jakobiec FA, eds. Principles and practice of ophthalmology. 1st ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1994.
    127. McCabe P. Vision rehabilitation programme overview. In: Albert DM, Jakobiec FA, eds. Principles and practice of ophthalmology. 1st ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1994.
    128. ↵
      Thompson JR, Woodruff G, Hiscox FA, et al. The incidence and prevalence of amblyopia detected in childhood. Public Health 1991;105:455–62.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    129. ↵
      Duldulao EC, ed. Vision for the future. International Council of Ophthalmology, 2001.
    130. Foster A. Vision 2020—the right to sight. In: Pararajasegaram R, Rao GN, eds. World blindness and its prevention. Proceedings of the Sixth IAPB General Assembly. Hyderabad: International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, 2001:431–5.
    131. Thylefors B. Vision 2020: the right to sight global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness. In: Pararajasegaram R, Rao GN, eds. World blindness and its prevention. Proceedings of the Sixth IAPB General Assembly. Hyderabad: International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness 2001:25–33.
    132. Thylefors B. A mission for vision. Lancet 2000;354:SIV44.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    133. Thylefors B. The WHO programme for the prevention of blindness and cataract in developing countries. Doc Ophthalmol 1992;81:339–44.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    134. ↵
      Johns A. The International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness and non-governmental organizations: an effective network. Int Ophthalmol 1990;14:227–30.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Series editors: W V Good and S RuitSee end of article for authors' affiliations