open access

Vol 9 (2024): Continuous Publishing
Original paper
Published online: 2024-03-28
Get Citation

Prevalence and socio-demographic distribution of uncorrected refractive errors in school-going adolescents in Kakamega County, Kenya

Emmanuel E. Okenwa-Vincent12, Jyoti Naidoo3, Peter Clarke-Farr4
DOI: 10.5603/oj.96882
·
Ophthalmol J 2024;9:45-52.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Kaimosi Friends University, Kaimosi, Kenya
  2. Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya
  3. African Vision Research Institute, Department of Optometry, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
  4. Department of Ophthalmic Sciences, Faculty of Health and Wellness Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

open access

Vol 9 (2024): Continuous Publishing
ORIGINAL PAPERS
Published online: 2024-03-28

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Efforts to mitigate vision loss due to uncorrected refractive errors (UREs) in Africa remain unpredictable. This study investigated the prevalence and socio-demographic distribution of UREs in school-going adolescents of Kakamega County in Kenya.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with randomly selected secondary school adolescents. Participants were screened and clinically examined for URE types and dioptric strength and were administered questionnaires designed to elicit socio-demographic, socioeconomic, and perceived well-being information.

RESULTS: 165 students, aged 17.50 ± 1.576 years, were included in the study. The prevalence of URE was found to be 8.65%, for which 27% of all UREs were significant. URE types were classified as astigmatism (52%), myopia (25%), and hyperopia (23%). Astigmatism and hyperopia were more common among males (59% and 61%, respectively) than females, while myopia occurred slightly more among females (51%) than males. Most participants (72%) were from large families, 92% had parents who were poorly educated, 85% had poor occupational statuses, and 89% were from rural settings. The interclass differences in all the pre-defined socio-demographic statuses were not significant (p > 0.05), including the within-group interaction with UREs. The distributions were significantly different (p < 0.05) for well being, with over two-thirds of the participants reporting poor-to-fair perceived well-being, with a recent known history of poor eye health.

CONCLUSIONS: URE is highly prevalent among school-going adolescents in Kakamega County. The study recommends intensified strategies to increase spectacle uptake among learners in rural settings and of low socioeconomic means.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Efforts to mitigate vision loss due to uncorrected refractive errors (UREs) in Africa remain unpredictable. This study investigated the prevalence and socio-demographic distribution of UREs in school-going adolescents of Kakamega County in Kenya.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with randomly selected secondary school adolescents. Participants were screened and clinically examined for URE types and dioptric strength and were administered questionnaires designed to elicit socio-demographic, socioeconomic, and perceived well-being information.

RESULTS: 165 students, aged 17.50 ± 1.576 years, were included in the study. The prevalence of URE was found to be 8.65%, for which 27% of all UREs were significant. URE types were classified as astigmatism (52%), myopia (25%), and hyperopia (23%). Astigmatism and hyperopia were more common among males (59% and 61%, respectively) than females, while myopia occurred slightly more among females (51%) than males. Most participants (72%) were from large families, 92% had parents who were poorly educated, 85% had poor occupational statuses, and 89% were from rural settings. The interclass differences in all the pre-defined socio-demographic statuses were not significant (p > 0.05), including the within-group interaction with UREs. The distributions were significantly different (p < 0.05) for well being, with over two-thirds of the participants reporting poor-to-fair perceived well-being, with a recent known history of poor eye health.

CONCLUSIONS: URE is highly prevalent among school-going adolescents in Kakamega County. The study recommends intensified strategies to increase spectacle uptake among learners in rural settings and of low socioeconomic means.

Get Citation

Keywords

school-going adolescents; sociodemographic; uncorrected refractive error; vision function; well-being

About this article
Title

Prevalence and socio-demographic distribution of uncorrected refractive errors in school-going adolescents in Kakamega County, Kenya

Journal

Ophthalmology Journal

Issue

Vol 9 (2024): Continuous Publishing

Article type

Original paper

Pages

45-52

Published online

2024-03-28

Page views

81

Article views/downloads

52

DOI

10.5603/oj.96882

Bibliographic record

Ophthalmol J 2024;9:45-52.

Keywords

school-going adolescents
sociodemographic
uncorrected refractive error
vision function
well-being

Authors

Emmanuel E. Okenwa-Vincent
Jyoti Naidoo
Peter Clarke-Farr

References (25)
  1. World Health Organization. Global data on visual impairments 2010. WHO Bull. 2012; 12(1): 1–4.
  2. Naidoo KS, Leasher J, Bourne RR, et al. Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Global Vision Impairment and Blindness Due to Uncorrected Refractive Error, 1990-2010. Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93(3): 227–234.
  3. Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Yekta A, et al. Global and regional estimates of prevalence of refractive errors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2018; 30(1): 3–22.
  4. Vitale S, Cotch MF, Sperduto R, et al. Costs of refractive correction of distance vision impairment in the United States, 1999-2002. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113(12): 2163–2170.
  5. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Ho SM, et al. Global vision impairment due to uncorrected presbyopia. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126(12): 1731–1739.
  6. Naidoo KS, Jaggernath J. Uncorrected refractive errors. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2012; 60(5): 432–437.
  7. Kilic-Toprak E, Toprak I. Future Problems of Uncorrected Refractive Errors in Children. Procedia — Soc Behav Sci. 2014; 159: 534–536.
  8. Smith TST, Frick KD, Holden BA, et al. Potential lost productivity resulting from the global burden of uncorrected refractive error. Bull World Health Organ. 2009; 87(6): 431–437.
  9. Baltussen R, Naus J, Limburg H. Cost-effectiveness of screening and correcting refractive errors in school children in Africa, Asia, America and Europe. Health Policy. 2009; 89(2): 201–215.
  10. Muma MK, Kimani K, Wanyoike MMK, et al. Prevalence of refractive errors in primary school children of a rural district of Kenya. JOECSA. 2013; 13(3).
  11. Nyamai LA. Prevalence, Knowledge, Attitude and Practice on Refractive error among Students attending Public High Schools in Nairobi County. Prevalence, Knowledge, Attitude and Practice on Refractive error among Students attending Public High Schools in Nairobi County. University of Nairobi, Nairobi 2016.
  12. Vitale S, Ellwein L, Cotch MF, et al. Prevalence of refractive error in the United States, 1999-2004. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126(8): 1111–1119.
  13. St.Olaf College. Sample Size — Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment. https://wp.stolaf.edu/iea/sample-size/ (03..08.2021).
  14. Random.org. Random Integer Generator 2013. https://www.random.org/integers/?mode=advanced (02.03.2018).
  15. Andersen A, Krølner R, Currie C, et al. High agreement on family affluence between children's and parents' reports: international study of 11-year-old children. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008; 62(12): 1092–1094.
  16. Kassa N, Woldeyes A, Misganaw C. Prevalence and factors associated with refractive error among primary school children in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Int J Med Heal Sci Res. 2014; 1(19): 92–104.
  17. Kedir J, Girma A. Prevalence of refractive error and visual impairment among rural school-age children of Goro District, Gurage Zone, Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2014; 24(4): 353–358.
  18. Jaggernath J, Øverland L, Ramson P, et al. Poverty and Eye Health. Health. 2014; 06(14): 1849–1860.
  19. NCPD. National Adolescent and Youth. 2017; 12–29.
  20. Wedner S, Masanja H, Bowman R, et al. Two strategies for correcting refractive errors in school students in Tanzania: randomised comparison, with implications for screening programmes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008; 92(1): 19–24.
  21. Tafida A, Kyari F, Abdull MM, et al. Nigeria National Survey of Blindness and Visual Impairment Study Group. Poverty and Blindness in Nigeria: Results from the National Survey of Blindness and Visual Impairment. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2015; 22(5): 333–341.
  22. Morjaria P, Evans J, Murali K, et al. Spectacle Wear Among Children in a School-Based Program for Ready-Made vs Custom-Made Spectacles in India: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017; 135(6): 527–533.
  23. Healthy People 2020. Health-related quality of life and well-being. Found Heal Meas Rep. 2010: 1–6.
  24. Polack S, Kuper H, Mathenge W, et al. Cataract visual impairment and quality of life in a Kenyan population. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007; 91(7): 927–932.
  25. Ministry of Health, Kenya. National Strategic Plan for Eye Health and Blindness Prevention: 2012–2018.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Publisher: VM Media Group sp. z o.o., Grupa Via Medica, 73 Świętokrzyska St., 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 310 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl