Effective refractive error coverage among adults aged ≥ 50 years in Burundi: a secondary analysis of the 2024 national Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB7) survey
Abstract
Background: Refractive error coverage (REC) and effective refractive error coverage (eREC) are World Health Organization-recommended indicators that are usually reported separately. REC reflects access to refractive services, whereas eREC reflects access resulting in effective visual correction. Using Burundi’s first national estimates from the 2024 Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB7), we examined how joint interpretation of REC, eREC and their gap can distinguish potential access shortfalls from shortfalls in service effectiveness and inform policy within universal health coverage.
Methods: This secondary analysis used the published population-based RAAB7 dataset from all six regions. A target sample of 3,850 adults aged ≥ 50 years was selected from 77 clusters. Standard RAAB7 definitions were used to reproduce the parent REC and eREC estimates and calculate absolute and relative gaps; the contribution is their joint interpretation, not new estimation. Estimates were age- and sex-adjusted; post hoc sex comparisons used approximate two-sided Wald tests based on design-adjusted standard errors.
Results: Of 3,850 sampled adults, 3,781 (98.2%) were examined. Age- and sex-adjusted REC was 8.6% (95% CI 4.9–12.4) and eREC was 6.1% (95% CI 3.1–9.1). The absolute difference was 2.5% points and the relative gap was 29.2%, so eREC represented 70.8% of REC; the mechanisms could not be identified. Women had higher REC (11.9% vs. 4.9%; approximate p = 0.029) and eREC (8.8% vs. 3.0%; approximate p = 0.028), while their absolute unmet or under-met need was also greater (approximately 64,600 vs. 58,800). Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of early vision impairment (69.4%).
Conclusions: The novelty lies in a practical framework for joint interpretation, not new estimates. Low REC identifies an access shortfall, while lower eREC shows that access does not always yield effective correction. The 2024 estimates provide a national baseline for the World Health Assembly target of a 40-percentage-point increase in eREC by 2030. Policies to expand access should be paired with measures to evaluate and improve service effectiveness within universal health coverage.
Trial registration: Not applicable. This is an analysis of data from an observational, cross-sectional, population-based survey.
Related
- Assessment of potentially avoidable hospitalizations in Ningxia, China: application of a China-specific ACSCs list
- Review of preoperative tomographic and biomechanical corneal assessment for refractive surgery
- Nd:YAG Laser for Effective Treatment of Subhyaloid and Sub–Internal Limiting Membrane Hemorrhages Secondary to Valsalva Retinopathy: A Case Series
- EasyCog: a fast and effective numerical tool for the self-assessment of cognitive functions
- Plasma biomarker strategies to reduce diagnostic uncertainty in p-tau217–based assessment of CSF amyloid positivity in secondary-care patients with MCI
BibTeX
@article{kandeke2026effective,
title = {{Effective refractive error coverage among adults aged ≥ 50 years in Burundi: a secondary analysis of the 2024 national Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB7) survey}},
author = {Lévi Kandeke and Adrien Bironkwaninguvu and Malachie Ndikumukiza},
journal = {BMC Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1186/s12889-026-29747-2},
url = {https://link.springer.com/10.1186/s12889-026-29747-2},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Effective refractive error coverage among adults aged ≥ 50 years in Burundi: a secondary analysis of the 2024 national Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB7) survey
AU - Lévi Kandeke
AU - Adrien Bironkwaninguvu
AU - Malachie Ndikumukiza
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/05
JO - BMC Public Health
DO - 10.1186/s12889-026-29747-2
UR - https://link.springer.com/10.1186/s12889-026-29747-2
AB - Background: Refractive error coverage (REC) and effective refractive error coverage (eREC) are World Health Organization-recommended indicators that are usually reported separately. REC reflects access to refractive services, whereas eREC reflects access resulting in effective visual correction. Using Burundi’s first national estimates from the 2024 Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness (RAAB7), we examined how joint interpretation of REC, eREC and their gap can distinguish potential access shortfalls from shortfalls in service effectiveness and inform policy within universal health coverage. Methods: This secondary analysis used the published population-based RAAB7 dataset from all six regions. A target sample of 3,850 adults aged ≥ 50 years was selected from 77 clusters. Standard RAAB7 definitions were used to reproduce the parent REC and eREC estimates and calculate absolute and relative gaps; the contribution is their joint interpretation, not new estimation. Estimates were age- and sex-adjusted; post hoc sex comparisons used approximate two-sided Wald tests based on design-adjusted standard errors. Results: Of 3,850 sampled adults, 3,781 (98.2%) were examined. Age- and sex-adjusted REC was 8.6% (95% CI 4.9–12.4) and eREC was 6.1% (95% CI 3.1–9.1). The absolute difference was 2.5% points and the relative gap was 29.2%, so eREC represented 70.8% of REC; the mechanisms could not be identified. Women had higher REC (11.9% vs. 4.9%; approximate p = 0.029) and eREC (8.8% vs. 3.0%; approximate p = 0.028), while their absolute unmet or under-met need was also greater (approximately 64,600 vs. 58,800). Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of early vision impairment (69.4%). Conclusions: The novelty lies in a practical framework for joint interpretation, not new estimates. Low REC identifies an access shortfall, while lower eREC shows that access does not always yield effective correction. The 2024 estimates provide a national baseline for the World Health Assembly target of a 40-percentage-point increase in eREC by 2030. Policies to expand access should be paired with measures to evaluate and improve service effectiveness within universal health coverage. Trial registration: Not applicable. This is an analysis of data from an observational, cross-sectional, population-based survey.
SN - 1471-2458
ER -