Awareness regarding eye donation among stakeholders in Srikakulam district in South India

Background There is a huge need for the availability of transplantable donor corneas worldwide to reduce the burden of corneal blindness due to corneal opacity. Voluntary eye donation depends on the awareness levels of various stakeholders in the community. This study aimed to assess the awareness level regarding eye donation among various stakeholders in Srikakulam district in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India. Methods 355 subjects were selected from the district using multi stage random sampling. A pre tested semi structured questionnaire was used to collect information regarding each individual’s awareness, knowledge, and perception regarding eye donation. Each response was scored individually and a total score was calculated. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with willingness towards eye donation and increased awareness levels. Results Of the 355 subjects interviewed, 192 (54%) were male and 163 (46%) were female. The mean age of the stakeholders was 35.9 years (SD ±16.1) and all the study subjects were literate. Ninety-three percent of subjects were aware of the concept of eye donation. Knowledge levels were similar among the teaching community and persons engaged in social service, but lower among students (p < 0.05). Among the stakeholders, there was considerable ambiguity regarding whether persons currently wearing spectacles or suffering from a chronic illnesses could donate their eyes. Older age group (p < 0.001), female gender (p < 0.001) and education (p < 0.001) were associated with increased knowledge levels. 82% of the subjects were willing to donate their eyes and this was unaffected by gender or geographical location (rural vs urban). Conclusions Awareness levels and willingness to donate eyes are high among the stakeholders in Srikakulam district in India. The services of stakeholders could be utilized, in conjunction with other community based eye donation counselors, to promote awareness regarding eye donation among the general population

Prevalence of refractive errors in children in India: a systematic review

Uncorrected refractive error is an avoidable cause of visual impairment which affects children in India. The objective of this review is to estimate the prevalence of refractive errors in children ≤ 15 years of age. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines were followed in this review. A detailed literature search was performed to include all population and school‐based studies published from India between January 1990 and January 2017, using the Cochrane Library, Medline and Embase. The quality of the included studies was assessed based on a critical appraisal tool developed for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. Four population‐based studies and eight school‐based studies were included. The overall prevalence of refractive error per 100 children was 8.0 (CI: 7.4–8.1) and in schools it was 10.8 (CI: 10.5–11.2). The population‐based prevalence of myopia, hyperopia (≥ +2.00 D) and astigmatism was 5.3 per cent, 4.0 per cent and 5.4 per cent, respectively. Combined refractive error and myopia alone were higher in urban areas compared to rural areas (odds ratio [OR]: 2.27 [CI: 2.09–2.45]) and (OR: 2.12 [CI: 1.79–2.50]), respectively. The prevalence of combined refractive errors and myopia alone in schools was higher among girls than boys (OR: 1.2 [CI: 1.1–1.3] and OR: 1.1 [CI: 1.1–1.2]), respectively. However, hyperopia was more prevalent among boys than girls in schools (OR: 2.1 [CI: 1.8–2.4]). Refractive error in children in India is a major public health problem and requires concerted efforts from various stakeholders including the health care workforce, education professionals and parents, to manage this issue

Prevalence of refractive errors, uncorrected refractive error, and presbyopia in adults in India: A systematic review

Purpose: The objective of this review is to estimate the prevalence of refractive errors, uncorrected refractive error (URE), and uncorrected presbyopia in adults aged ≥30 years in India. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A detailed literature search was performed to include all studies published from India from the year 1990 using the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase. Refractive error was defined by >0.50 D ametropia. URE was defined by presenting visual acuity (PVA) worse than 6/18 improving with pinhole or spectacle correction, and uncorrected presbyopia by near vision <N8 improving with correction in the absence of distance URE. Results: Fifteen studies were included from South India, one each from Western and Central India, and one study covered 15 states across India. The prevalence of RE of at least 0.50 D of spherical equivalent ametropia was 53.1% [(95% confidence interval (CI): 37.2–68.5), of which myopia and hyperopia was 27.7% and 22.9%, respectively. The prevalence of URE was 10.2% (95% CI: 6.9–14.8), but heterogeneity in these estimates was very high. The prevalence of uncorrected presbyopia was 33% (95% CI: 19.1–51.0). Conclusion: This review highlights the magnitude of refractive errors among adults in India. More studies are needed using standard methods in regions where there is a lack of information on UREs. Programs delivering spectacles for adults in India will need to primarily focus on reading glasses to correct presbyopia along with spectacles for hyperopia and myopia

Design and delivery of the Refractive Errors Among Children (REACH) school-based eye health programme in India

Clinical relevance: Optimisation of vision screening programmes can result the detection of refractive anomalies in a high proportion of school children. Background: The Refractive Errors Among Children (REACH) programme aims to optimise outcomes of school-based vision screening in India by collaborating with hospitals and monitoring eye care throughout school attendance. Methods: REACH delivers school vision screening using pocket vision screeners (cards presenting rows of seven 0.2 logMAR Sloan letters at a 3 m viewing distance) in five states across India. Children who fail screening are referred for detailed evaluation including refraction, those requiring cycloplegic refraction are referred to partner hospitals. Spectacles are dispensed as needed and compliance is assessed. All data are recorded electronically. Results: Out of 2,240,805 children aged 5 to 18 (mean 11.5; SD ±3.3) years, 2,024,053 have undergone REACH screening in 10,309 schools predominantly in rural locations (78.7%) and government-funded (76%). Of those screened, 174,706 (8.6%) underwent detailed evaluation. A higher proportion of children in private or urban schools (11.8% and 10.4% respectively) were referred for detailed evaluation than those in government-funded or rural schools (5.9% and 7.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). The proportion referred for detailed evaluation differed by state (p < 0.001), from 4.0% in West Bengal to 14.4% in Kerala. Conclusion: The REACH programme screened a high proportion of school children, providing further care and follow-up to optimise visual outcomes

Analysis of yield of retinal imaging in a rural diabetes eye care model

Purpose: The aim of this study is to analyze the yield of retinal images obtained in a rural diabetes eye care model. Methods: An analysis of a sample of nonmydriatic fundus photography (NMFP) of posterior segment ophthalmic images, obtained by an indigenous equipment (3 nethra-Forus Royal), was done in a district-wide rural diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening program; a trained optometrist did the initial image grading. DR and diabetic macular edema (DME) were classified based on international DR and DME severity scale. The agreement between the optometrist and retina specialist was very good (κ = 0.932; standard error = 0.030; 95% confidence interval = 0.874–0.991). Results: Posterior segment images of 2000 eyes of 1000 people with diabetes mellitus (DM) were graded. The mean age of the participants was 55.7 ± 11.5 standard deviation years. Nearly 42% of the screened participants (n = 420/1000) needed referral. The most common referable posterior segment abnormality was DR (8.2%). The proportion of people with any form of DR was seen in 110/1225 eyes, and sight-threatening DR was seen in 35/1225 eyes. About 62% of posterior segment images were gradable. The reasons for ungradable posterior segment images (34%) were small pupil, unfocused/partially available field of images, and cataract. Conclusion: A NMFP model was able to detect referable posterior segment abnormalities in a rural diabetes eye care program. Reasons found for ungradability of images in the present study can be addressed while designing future DR screening programs in the rural areas