Prevalence and risk factors of refractive errors among preparatory school students in Beni-Suef, Egypt
- 27 Downloads
Studying the epidemiology of refractive errors (REs) among school students is important for developing national strategies that can prevent visual impairment. The purpose of this study was to detect the prevalence and risk factors of RE among preparatory school students in Beni-Suef, Egypt.
In this cross-sectional study, a total of 469 school students aged 12~14 years received visual acuity (VA) assessments using Snellen’s chart, and students who failed the test (visual acuity worse than 6/9 in either eye) were subjected to refractive evaluation using an autorefractor.
The overall prevalence of RE among the sampled students was 22.8% (71% myope and 29% hyperope). There was a statistically significant association between RE and family factors. Students whose parents both wore glasses were more likely to have RE (P < 0.001, OR = 3.24) and students with two or more siblings wearing glasses showed higher rates of RE (P < 0.001, OR = 4.5). Students with RE reported more hours/day watching TV (P < 0.001, OR = 3.59).
The prevalence of RE in preparatory school students in Beni-Suef was detected. Family history and indoor activities are determining risk factors for RE. Nearly half of our school students with RE were newly detected in this study.
KeywordsRefractive errors School students Risk factors Prevalence
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was conducted in full accordance with the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University. The heads of the selected schools were briefed on the purpose of the study and signed an informed consent form on behalf of the school children. Verbal assent of the students was sought before they were examined.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
- Abou Elel MA, Adel R, Fahmy M (1992) Evaluation of screening methods for detection of refraction and visual acuity defect. Cairo. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, MSc thesisGoogle Scholar
- Dandona R, Dandona L, Srinivas M, Sahare P, Narsaiah S, Muñoz SR (2002) Refractive error in children in a rural population in India. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:615–622Google Scholar
- El Sayed SH, Mohamed M, Ahmed S (1993) Study of ametropia in primary school children in Monifia. Bull Ophthalmol Soc Egypt 86:345–350Google Scholar
- Fulk GW, Goss DA (2001) Relationship between refractive status and teacher evaluations of school achievement. J Opt Vis Dev 32(2):80–82Google Scholar
- Hassanien RM, Hammouda LM, Abdalla AE (2001) Prevalence and Causes of visual acuity in school children in Alminya area. Bull Ophthalmol Soc Egypt 94(6):929–932Google Scholar
- Holden BA, Sulaiman S, Knox K (2000) The challenge of providing spectacles in the developing world. Community Eye Health 13:9–10Google Scholar
- Murthy GV, Gupta SK, Ellwein LB, Muñoz SR, Pokharel GP, Sanga L (2002) Refractive error in children in an urban population in New Delhi. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:623–631Google Scholar
- Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Moeschberger ML (2002) Parental myopia, near work, school achievement, and children’s refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:3633–3640Google Scholar
- Norlaila MD, Mohd Ali B, Mohammed Z, Bashirah I, Sharanjeet K, MohidinN (2002) Prevalens kesalahan refraktif satu sampel populasi orang asli di Malaysia. Jurnal Kesihatan Masyarakat 8:43–45Google Scholar
- Ovenseri-Ogbomo GO, Omuemu VO (2010) Prevalence of refractive error among school children in the cape coast municipality. Clin Optom 117(6):1278–1279Google Scholar
- Saad A, El-Bayoumy BM (2007) Environmental risk factors for refractive error among Egyptian schoolchildren. East Mediterr Health J 13(4):819–828Google Scholar
- Yared AW, Belaynew WT, Destaye S, Ayanaw T, Zelalem E (2012) Prevalence of refractive errors among school children in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia Middle East. Afr J Ophthalmol 19(4):372–376Google Scholar