Graybug Vision (United States)

Background In the North-West Region of Cameroon (NWR) there is limited research available to shape mental health programmes and policy, and this gap has been compounded by the ongoing sociopolitical crisis. Developing a comprehensive research agenda is crucial to guiding mental health research and informing evidence-based interventions. Aims This paper presents a proposed research agenda for priority mental health, mental disorders and related issues in the NWR. It aims to enhance awareness about the need for research on mental health issues, including evidence about what is needed and effective. Method The study used a modified Delphi process with a multidisciplinary team of researchers and mental health practitioners. The study included a literature review, consultation with participants and reaching agreement on the most pressing research needs and approaches. Results Priority mental health research areas include (a) broad studies (e.g. situational analysis, prevalence studies); (b) mental health interventions; and (c) understanding mental health issues in depth, especially research involving persons with lived experience of mental health conditions and their families. Intervention studies are needed to better develop and evaluate treatments for trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder, and interventions that are grounded in local realities. Research exploring mental distress and poverty, and gendered analysis of mental health conditions, were also identified as key research priorities. Locally appropriate methods for conducting mental health research, reviewing of mental health-related research conducted at universities and supporting students in research were recognised as relevant to achieving these goals. Conclusions This work provides priorities to guide future mental health research in the NWR. This agenda has the potential to enhance understanding of local mental health challenges and to accelerate the development of contextually relevant, evidence-based solutions. Sustained commitment and multi-stakeholder partnerships will be crucial for translating this agenda into impactful research and practice.

This study reports prevalence data combined independently for accommodative dysfunction, convergence insufficiency, visual field loss, and visual acuity loss in patients with traumatic brain injury in the absence of eye injury. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence rates of accommodative dysfunction, convergence insufficiency, visual field loss, and visual acuity loss in TBI patients without concomitant eye injury. The data sources used in this study were PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library. Publications reporting the prevalence of diagnosed accommodative dysfunction, convergence insufficiency, visual field loss, or visual acuity loss to the level of legal blindness in TBI patients of any age were included. Univariate metaregression analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to account for statistical heterogeneity. Twenty-two eligible publications were identified across the four visual conditions. Random-effects models yielded combined prevalence estimates: accommodative dysfunction (42.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.3 to 54.7), convergence insufficiency (36.3%; 95% CI, 28.2 to 44.9%), visual field loss (18.2%; 95% CI, 10.6 to 27.1%), and visual acuity loss (0.0%; 95% CI, 0.0 to 1.1%). Metaregression and subgroup analyses revealed that visual field loss was significantly more prevalent in moderate to severe (39.8%; 95% CI, 29.8 to 50.3%) compared with mild TBI (6.6%; 95% CI, 0 to 19.5%). This study demonstrates that accommodative dysfunction, convergence insufficiency, and visual field loss are common sequelae of TBI. Prospective longitudinal research with rigorous and uniform methodology is needed to better understand short- and long-term effects of TBI on the vision system.

On the plane home from the KfW Symposium on microfinance investment funds, I thought about the facts, the ideas, and the feelings that we shared during those two days in November 2004. The feelings were especially important because they are what most motivate us, stir us to action or resign us to abstinence. One feeling I sensed several times was fear — the fear of private investment in microfinance. Are investors “short timers,” getting in, making or losing a quick buck, and getting out? Will investors sitting on boards corrupt strategy, moving management towards consumer lending, away from the smaller borrowers and the rural markets? Will they load existing customers with more debt than they can handle? In response to such questions rooted in fear, and to explore another way of experiencing what lies ahead, I offer the view of one investor.