open access

Vol 5 (2020): Continuous Publishing
Original paper
Published online: 2020-07-20
Get Citation

Prevalence of myopia and its socio-demographic distribution amongst secondary school going adolescents in Lurambi Sub-County, Kakamega, Kenya

Alfred Ragot1, Mustafa Baraza2, Peter Clarke-Farr3
·
Ophthalmol J 2020;5:64-70.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Optometry and Vision Science, School of Public Health and Biomedical Sciences, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya
  2. Department of Medical Laboratory and Biotechnology, School of Public Health and Biomedical Sciences, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya
  3. Department of Ophthalmic Sciences, Faculty of Health and Wellness Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

open access

Vol 5 (2020): Continuous Publishing
ORIGINAL PAPERS
Published online: 2020-07-20

Abstract

Background: Globally the prevalence of myopia has increased alarmingly and is expected to affect an estimated 2.56 billion people in the world by the end of 2020. It is believed to be the leading cause of visual impairment in Kenya, contributing 59.5% of all causes of visual impairment. Still, agreement on the exact prevalence in Kenya and whether socio-demographic factors have an influence on myopia is unknown. This study was aimed at evaluating the prevalence of myopia and its socio-demographic distribution amongst randomly selected school-going adolescent. This study was conducted in Lurambi Sub-County in Kakamega, Kenya. Material and methods: The study adopted a school-based cross-sectional descriptive study design. Using a multi-stage sampling technique, 733 participants from a population of 7,400 secondary school students within Lurambi Sub-County were randomly selected. A standard optometric vision-assessment protocol was applied to those who met the inclusion criteria and cycloplegic refraction was conducted to elicit those who had myopia. Results: The prevalence of myopia was found to be 7.5% of which 29 (52.7%) were male while 26 (47.3%) were female and there was no association between gender and myopia (p = 0.572). Myopia was found to be more prevalent in urban 49 (87.3%) as compared to rural 7 (12.7%) areas and there was no association between place of residences and myopia (p = 0.381). Similarly, 15–18 years was the dominant age group 39 (70.9%) and there was no association between age and having myopia (p = 0.926). The study also found that there was no association (p = 0.207) between school class of the participants and having myopia, although most myopic cases were in the form four class 15 (27.3%). Conclusion: Myopia was found to be mostly prevalent in the urban setting and upper classes as compared to rural and lower classes. This may link myopia to other risk factors such as near work and outdoor activities, but more research needs to be done in these areas. 

Abstract

Background: Globally the prevalence of myopia has increased alarmingly and is expected to affect an estimated 2.56 billion people in the world by the end of 2020. It is believed to be the leading cause of visual impairment in Kenya, contributing 59.5% of all causes of visual impairment. Still, agreement on the exact prevalence in Kenya and whether socio-demographic factors have an influence on myopia is unknown. This study was aimed at evaluating the prevalence of myopia and its socio-demographic distribution amongst randomly selected school-going adolescent. This study was conducted in Lurambi Sub-County in Kakamega, Kenya. Material and methods: The study adopted a school-based cross-sectional descriptive study design. Using a multi-stage sampling technique, 733 participants from a population of 7,400 secondary school students within Lurambi Sub-County were randomly selected. A standard optometric vision-assessment protocol was applied to those who met the inclusion criteria and cycloplegic refraction was conducted to elicit those who had myopia. Results: The prevalence of myopia was found to be 7.5% of which 29 (52.7%) were male while 26 (47.3%) were female and there was no association between gender and myopia (p = 0.572). Myopia was found to be more prevalent in urban 49 (87.3%) as compared to rural 7 (12.7%) areas and there was no association between place of residences and myopia (p = 0.381). Similarly, 15–18 years was the dominant age group 39 (70.9%) and there was no association between age and having myopia (p = 0.926). The study also found that there was no association (p = 0.207) between school class of the participants and having myopia, although most myopic cases were in the form four class 15 (27.3%). Conclusion: Myopia was found to be mostly prevalent in the urban setting and upper classes as compared to rural and lower classes. This may link myopia to other risk factors such as near work and outdoor activities, but more research needs to be done in these areas. 

Get Citation

Keywords

myopia; Kenya; prevalence; socio-demographic

About this article
Title

Prevalence of myopia and its socio-demographic distribution amongst secondary school going adolescents in Lurambi Sub-County, Kakamega, Kenya

Journal

Ophthalmology Journal

Issue

Vol 5 (2020): Continuous Publishing

Article type

Original paper

Pages

64-70

Published online

2020-07-20

Page views

859

Article views/downloads

815

DOI

10.5603/OJ.2020.0015

Bibliographic record

Ophthalmol J 2020;5:64-70.

Keywords

myopia
Kenya
prevalence
socio-demographic

Authors

Alfred Ragot
Mustafa Baraza
Peter Clarke-Farr

References (24)
  1. Naidoo KS, Fricke TR, Frick KD, et al. Potential Lost Productivity Resulting from the Global Burden of Myopia: Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Modeling. Ophthalmology. 2019; 126(3): 338–346.
  2. Bourne R, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite TB, et al. Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017; 5(9): e888–e897.
  3. Bourne RRA, Stevens GA, White RA, et al. Vision Loss Expert Group. Causes of vision loss worldwide, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2013; 1(6): e339–e349.
  4. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global Prevalence of Myopia and High Myopia and Temporal Trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123(5): 1036–1042.
  5. Holden B, Sankaridurg P, Smith E, et al. Myopia, an underrated global challenge to vision: where the current data takes us on myopia control. Eye (Lond). 2014; 28(2): 142–146.
  6. Pan CW, Ramamurthy D, Saw SM. Worldwide prevalence and risk factors for myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012; 32(1): 3–16.
  7. Morgan PB, Efron N, Woods CA, et al. International Contact Lens Prescribing Survey Consortium. International survey of orthokeratology contact lens fitting. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019; 42(4): 450–454.
  8. Wong HB, Machin D, Tan SB, et al. Visual impairment and its impact on health-related quality of life in adolescents. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009; 147(3): 505–511.e1.
  9. Barasa E, Otieno S, Karimurio J. The prevalence and pattern of visual impairment and blindness among Primary School pupils in Kitale Municipality, Kenya. J Ophthalmol East Cent South African. 2013; October: 66–70.
  10. Nyamai LA. Prevalence, Knowledge, Attitude and Practice on Refractive error among Students attending Public High Schools in Nairobi County. Dep Ophthalmol. 2016; October: 109.
  11. Bastawrous A, Mathenge W, Foster A, et al. Prevalence and predictors of refractive error and spectacle coverage in Nakuru, Kenya: a cross-sectional, population-based study. Int Ophthalmol. 2013; 33(5): 541–548.
  12. Wedner SH, Ross DA, Balira R, et al. Prevalence of eye diseases in primary school children in a rural area of Tanzania. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000; 84(11): 1291–1297.
  13. Nzuki HN. Significant refractive errors as seen in standard eight pupils attending public schools in Langata division. Nairobi 2004.
  14. Rey-Rodríguez D, Álvarez-Peregrina C, Moreno-Montoya J. Prevalencia y factores asociados a miopía en jóvenes. Rev Mexic Oftalmol. 2017; 91(5): 223–228.
  15. Ho T, Nallasamy S. Myoia: Eidemiology and Strategies for Intervention. Vol. 2, Advances in Ohthalmology and Otometry. Elsevier Inc 2017: 63–74.
  16. Morgan IG, Rose KA. Myopia: is the nature-nurture debate finally over? Clin Exp Optom. 2019; 102(1): 3–17.
  17. Ip J, Saw SM, Rose K, et al. Role of Near Work in Myopia: Findings in a Sample of Australian School Children. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49(7): 2903.
  18. Ip JM, Rose KA, Morgan IG, et al. Myopia and the urban environment: findings in a sample of 12-year-old Australian school children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49(9): 3858–3863.
  19. Hsu CC, Huang N, Lin PY, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for myopia in second-grade primary school children in Taipei: A population-based study. J Chin Med Assoc. 2016; 79(11): 625–632.
  20. You QiS, Wu LiJ, Duan JLi, et al. Factors associated with myopia in school children in China: the Beijing childhood eye study. PLoS One. 2012; 7(12): e52668.
  21. Li SM, Li He, Li SY, et al. Anyang Childhood Eye Study Group. Time Outdoors and Myopia Progression Over 2 Years in Chinese Children: The Anyang Childhood Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56(8): 4734–4740.
  22. Sun JT, An M, Yan XBo, et al. Prevalence and Related Factors for Myopia in School-Aged Children in Qingdao. J Ophthalmol. 2018; 2018: 9781987.
  23. Bez D, Megreli J, Bez M, et al. Association Between Type of Educational System and Prevalence and Severity of Myopia Among Male Adolescents in Israel. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019 [Epub ahead of print].
  24. Wu LJ, Wang YX, You QS, et al. Risk Factors of Myopic Shift among Primary School Children in Beijing, China: A Prospective Study. Int J Med Sci. 2015; 12(8): 633–638.

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