Evaluation of the opinion of healthcare organizers regarding the current situation in organization of glaucoma care in Ukraine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32402/dovkil2026.01.023Keywords:
ophthalmology, glaucoma, healthcare organization, healthcare institutions, glaucoma treatment and preventionAbstract
The Aim. to investigate the opinion of health care organizers on the possibility of providing medical, diagnostic and preventive care to patients with glaucoma at the present time in Ukraine. Materials and methods. Evaluation of the results of a questionnaire of 290 health care organizers of private and public institutions of Ukraine. The work used bibliographic and analytical methods. Results. When asked about the quality and accessibility of ophthalmological care in health care institutions (HCPs) of Ukraine, more than 90% of respondents defined it as average and higher. 73% of respondents answered that the level of care for patients with glaucoma in Ukraine is lower than the world average. More than 85% of respondents answered that they use National and European clinical protocols in their practice. Less than 60% of respondents confirmed that there is surgical treatment of glaucoma used in their health care centers. The main factors influencing the high incidence of glaucoma were named by respondents as: insufficient attention of the population to their health (90.4%), insufficient awareness of the dangers of glaucoma and its consequences (81.9%), insufficient awareness of risk factors for glaucoma (78.3%); on the other hand, low accessibility of ophthalmological care was noted by only 15.7%. According to respondents, to improve glaucoma prevention, it is necessary to: strengthen preventive measures (87.6%), strengthen the work of family doctors on glaucoma (78.7%), increase public awareness of the dangers of glaucoma and its consequences (70.8%). At the same time, measures that will improve the quality and accessibility of medical care for glaucoma are considered: optimization of resource provision of health care facilities (73%), governmental control (60.7%), implementation of treatment standards (58.4%), improvement of technologies of preventive, diagnostic and treatment processes (42.7%). Conclusions. The study showed that the vast majority of respondents noted an insufficient level of care for patients with glaucoma in the institutions where they work, compared to the global one. The vast majority of respondents confirmed the use of approved clinical protocols and guidelines in their practice. Respondents considered the main shortcomings of organizing medical care for patients with glaucoma to be low awareness of the population and a preventive focus in providing care, insufficient material and technical base of health care facilities, and insufficient involvement in the processes of early detection of glaucoma in the primary care setting.Downloads
References
1. Burton MJ, Ramke J, Marques AP, Bourne RRA, Congdon N, Jones I, et. al. The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: vision beyond 2020. The Lancet. Global health. 2021;9(4):489–551. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30488-5
2. Bou Ghanem GO, Wareham LK, Calkins DJ. Addressing neurodegeneration in glaucoma: Mechanisms, challenges, and treatments. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2024 May;100:101261. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2024.101261
3. Shan S, Wu J, Cao J, Feng Y, Zhou J, Luo Z, Song P, Rudan I. Global Health Epidemiology Research Group (GHERG). Global incidence and risk factors for glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Glob Health. Nov 8, 2024. doi: 10.7189/jogh.14.04252
4. Saini DJ B, Choubey S, Choubey A, Kidwai M, Meh rotra M, Kolekar S, Raut Y. Early detection of glaucoma integrated with deep learning models over medical devices. BioSystems. 2024: 105156. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2024.105156
5. GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators, & Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(2):130–43. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30425-3
6. Imrie C, Tatham AJ. Glaucoma: the patient's perspective. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(646):371–3. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X685165
7. Leung DYL, Tham CC. Normaltension glaucoma: Current concepts and approaches. A review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;50(2):247–59. doi: 10.1111/ceo.14043
8. Pelčić G, Ljubičić R, Barać J, Biuk D, Rogoić V. Glaucoma, depression and quality of life: multiple comorbidities, multiple assessments and multidisciplinary plan treatment. Psychiatr Danub . 2017;29(3):351–9. doi: 10.24869/psyd.2017.351
9. Quaranta L, Novella A, Tettamanti M, Pasina L, Weinreb RN, Nobili A. Adherence and Persistence to Medical Therapyin Glaucoma: An Overview. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12(5):2227–40. doi: 10.1007/s40123-023-00730-zLi
10. Zhang RK, Lu Z, Mou D, Wang J, Li H, Fan S, Wang N, Liu H. Costutility analysis of commonly used anti-glaucoma interventions for mild-to-moderate primary open-angle glaucoma patients in rural and urban China. BMJ Open. Sep 6 2023;13(9):1–8. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073219
11. Stein JD, Khawaja AP, Weizer JS. Glaucomain Adults-Screening, Diagnosis, and Management: A Review. JAMA. 2021;325(2):164–74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21899
12. Nakaz MOZ Ukrainy vid 26.05.2023 № 959 «Pro zatverdzhennia Standartu medychnoi dopomohy «Hlaukoma» [Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine dated May 26, 2023 No. 959 «On Approval of the Standard of Medical Care «Glaucoma»]. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v0959282-23#Text (Ukrainian).
13. Soqia J, Ataya J, Alhalabi R, Alhomsi R, Hamwy R, Mardini K, Hamzeh A. Awareness and knowledge of glaucoma among visitors of main public hospitals in Damascus, Syria: a crosssectional study. BMC ophthalmology. 2023.23(1).17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02766-4
14. European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 5th Edition. BJ Ophthalmol. 2021; 105(Suppl 1):1–169. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-egsguidelines
15. Funke C, Ristvedt D, Yadgarov A, Micheletti J. Interventional glaucoma consensus treatment protocol. Expert Rev Ophthtalmol . 2025;20(2);79–87. doi: 10.1080/17469899.2025.2465330
16. Melnyk VO, Palamar BI. Znachennya spivpratsi mizh likarem i patsiyentom dlya efektyvnosti orhanizatsiyi nadannya khirurhichnoyi dopomohy patsiyentam z hlaukomoyu [Melnyk VO, Palamar BI. The importance of cooperation between a doctor and a patient for the effectiveness of organizing surgical care for patients with glaucoma]. Ukrayina. Zdorovʼya natsiyi [Ukraine. Health of the Nation]. 2025;4:121–7. doi: 10.32782/2077-6594/2025.4/13 (Ukrainian).
17. Janz NK, Wren PA, Guire KE, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Lichter PR. Fear of blindness in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: patterns and correlates over time. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(12):2213– 20. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.02.014
18. Package of eye care interventions. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/354256
19. KizorAkaraiwe NN, Olawoye O. Allocating Resources for Glaucoma Care — A Review. US Ophthalmic Review. 2019;12(2):78–84. doi: 12.78.10.17925/USOR.2019.12.2.78
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Environment & Health

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.