Between 1 million and 1.5 million children worldwide are blind. Almost a quarter of them live in Africa. The most common cause of blindness there is cataracts, which can only be treated surgically. Using the example of childhood blindness, the authors of the discussion paper show how a balanced global health policy can combine prevention and treatment to achieve positive effects on life satisfaction as well as on society and the economy. They describe the progression of congenital cataracts in children and how targeted treatment can prevent childhood blindness. This enables children to attend regular school and later pursue a career. In the discussion paper, the scientists explain how treatment can also impact gross national product, and how the investments necessary to establish healthcare provision pay off both socially and economically.
The “Global Clinical Care” approach aims to create local self-help structures. In the case of childhood blindness, this means identifying affected children at an early stage, strengthening local care capacities and providing further training for ophthalmic specialists. From the authors' point of view, institutionalised partnerships are a key instrument for this. The discussion paper presents two partnerships as examples: a partnership between Rostock/Germany and Kinshasa/Democratic Republic of Congo and a partnership between Tübingen/Germany and Blantyre/Malawi. Healthcare structures were established within the framework of these partnerships. Specialists were trained both locally and during stays in Germany. According to the authors, these long-term partnerships have the potential to strengthen sustainable healthcare provision locally. They therefore recommend that the German government, in continuing its Global Health Strategy, place greater emphasis on the connection between prevention and treatment and, among other things, provide a framework programme for state funding of institutionalised partnerships.
Publications in the “Leopoldina Discussion” series are contributions by the authors named. With its discussion papers, the Academy offers researchers the opportunity to provide thought-provoking impulses, stimulate discourse, and formulate recommendations flexibly and without a formal working group process. The theses and recommendations contained in discussion papers thus do not reflect the official positions of the Leopoldina.