Near-vision impairment and effective near-vision spectacle coverage in two districts in Telangana, India: a population-based cross-sectional study

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Epidemiology and impact

The global all-ages prevalence of epidemiologically-measured 'functional' presbyopia was estimated at 24.9% in 2015, affecting 1.8 billion people. This prevalence was projected to stabilise at 24.1% in 2030 due to increasing myopia, but to affect more people (2.1 billion) due to population dynamics. Factors affecting the prevalence of presbyopia include age, geographic location, urban versus rural location, sex, and, to a lesser extent, socioeconomic status, literacy and education, health literacy and inequality. Risk factors for early onset of presbyopia included environmental factors, nutrition, near demands, refractive error, accommodative dysfunction, medications, certain health conditions and sleep. Presbyopia was found to impact on quality-of-life, in particular quality of vision, labour force participation, work productivity and financial burden, mental health, social wellbeing and physical health. Current understanding makes it clear that presbyopia is a very common age-related condition that has significant impacts on both patient-reported outcome measures and economics. However, there are complexities in defining presbyopia for epidemiological and impact studies. Standardisation of definitions will assist future synthesis, pattern analysis and sense-making between studies.

Approaches for delivery of refractive and optical care services in community and primary care settings

BACKGROUND

Uncorrected refractive error is a leading cause of vision impairment which, in most cases, can be managed with the appropriate spectacle correction. In 2021, the World Health Assembly endorsed a global target of a 40-percentage-point increase in effective coverage of refractive error by 2030. To achieve this global target, equitable access to refractive and optical services within community and primary care settings needs to be strengthened. This review will inform the development of technical guidance to support improvements in the testing and correction of refractive error among World Health Organization (WHO) member states.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the range of approaches for delivery of refractive and optical care services in community and primary care settings, and the methods employed for their evaluation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health databases, grey literature, and annual reports and websites of relevant organizations involved in eye-care delivery from January 2002 to November 2022 to identify approaches for refractive and optical service delivery.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included observational and interventional studies, reviews, and reports from relevant organizations related to delivering refractive services and optical services for preschool and school-aged children and adults in community and primary care settings published between January 2002 and November 2022. We searched for studies and reports published within the last 20 years because vision impairment due to uncorrected refractive error has only recently become a public health and eye health priority, therefore we did not expect to find much relevant literature until after 2002.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts, and extracted data. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We synthesized data, and presented results as tables, figures, and case studies. This project was led by the World Health Organization (WHO) Vision and Eye Care Programme.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 175 studies from searches of databases and grey literature, 146 records from company reports, and 81 records from website searches of relevant organizations that matched our inclusion criteria. Delivery approaches for refractive and optical services in community care included school-based, pharmacy, and outreach models, whereas primary care approaches comprised vision centre, health centre, and a combination of vision or health centre and door-to-door delivery. In community care, school-based and outreach approaches were predominant, while in primary care, a vision-centre approach was mainly used. In the WHO African region, the school-based and outreach approaches were mainly reported while, in the Americas, the outreach approach was mostly used. Very few approaches for service delivery were reported in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Prominent gaps exist in the evaluation of the approaches, and few studies attempted to evaluate the approaches for delivery of refractive and optical care services.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We comprehensively describe a range of approaches for delivery of refractive and optical services in community and primary care. Further evaluation of their effectiveness will better inform the application of these service-delivery approaches. The study outcomes will help guide WHO member states in strengthening refractive and optical services at community and primary care levels.

FUNDING

This scoping review was supported by the Vision and Eye care Programme, World Health Organization and ATscale Global Partnership.

REGISTRATION

The protocol of this scoping review was published in the Open Source Framework.

Near vision impairment and effective refractive error coverage for near vision in Andhra Pradesh, India - The Akividu Visual Impairment Study (AVIS)

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Near Vision Impairment (NVI) is common in developing countries. A substantial proportion of NVI can be addressed by providing spectacles. Innovative eye care programmes are needed to address NVI. Population-based epidemiological studies can provide vital data to plan such eye care service delivery models.

BACKGROUND

To report the prevalence of NVI and effective Refractive Error Coverage (eREC) for near vision in West Godavari and Krishna districts in Andhra Pradesh, south India.

METHODS

A population-based cross-sectional study was carried out using a Rapid Assessment of Visual Impairment methodology. Presenting and pinhole distance visual acuity were assessed followed by near vision assessment using a N notation chart at a fixed distance of 40 cm. If the presenting near vision was worse than N8, the best corrected near visual acuity was recorded with age appropriate near vision correction. NVI was defined as presenting near vision worse than N8 among those without distance vision impairment (6/18 or better in the better eye). Effective Refractive Error Coverage for near was calculated as the proportion of individuals with an adequate correction to the total participants, including those with inadequate, adequate, and no correction for near vision.

RESULTS

Data of 2,228 participants aged ≥40 years were analysed. The mean age of these participants was 54.0 ± 10.4 years; 53.8% were women; 44.5% had no formal education. The prevalence of NVI was 27.1% (95% CI: 25.2-29.0%). NVI significantly associated with 70 and above age group (adjusted OR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.45-3.70). Participants with formal education had lower odds for NVI (adjusted OR: 0.75; 95 % CI: 0.68-0.83). The eREC for near vision was 48.0%.

CONCLUSION

NVI affects over a quarter of people aged ≥40 years in the West Godavari and Krishna districts of Andhra Pradesh. However, eREC is under 50% and there is scope for improving this by establishing eye care services to achieve universal eye health for all.

Prevalence of presbyopia, spectacles coverage and barriers for unmet need among adult population of rural Jhajjar, Haryana

Background:

Presbyopia is a major cause for near visual impairment among adults. Presbyopia induced visual impairment can be corrected easily by spectacles. We aimed to study the prevalence of presbyopia among adults aged ≥35 years and spectacles coverage among them. We also studied the unmet need for presbyopia along with the barriers to uptake of services.

Methods:

This is a population-based cross-sectional study conducted among adults aged ≥35 years in a rural district of Haryana. Near vision assessment and semistructured interview schedule were administered by a team of trained ophthalmic assistant, social worker and health assistant.

Results:

A total of 3832 adults aged ≥35 years were enumerated, from which 3246 (84.7%) were examined. Prevalence of presbyopia was found to be 42.9% (95% confidence interval 41.2–44.6). Participants with increasing age, literacy and women had higher prevalence, and those that were employed and belonged to below poverty line economic status had lower prevalence of presbyopia. Spectacles coverage among presbyopes was found to be 25.8%. There was an inverse association between unmet need for presbyopia and women, increasing education status and office work. Lack of felt need and personal reasons were the most common barriers for unmet need due to presbyopia.

Conclusions:

There is high prevalence of presbyopia among adult population, with spectacles coverage being low. Awareness activities along with affordable, accessible and socially acceptable services for those affected with presbyopia would be one of the key components of management.