Original Research

Uncorrected refractive errors, presbyopia and spectacle coverage in Kamuli District, Uganda

Naomi Nsubuga, Prasidh Ramson, Pirindha Govender, VingFai Chan, Mary Wepo, Kovin S. Naidoo
African Vision and Eye Health | Vol 75, No 1 | a327 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/aveh.v75i1.327 | © 2016 Naomi Nsubuga, Prasidh Ramson, Pirindha Govender, VingFai Chan, Mary Wepo, Kovin S. Naidoo | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 09 October 2015 | Published: 15 June 2016

About the author(s)

Naomi Nsubuga, Brien Holden Vision Institute, Uganda
Prasidh Ramson, Brien Holden Vision Institute, South Africa; Department of Ophthalmic Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa
Pirindha Govender, Brien Holden Vision Institute, South Africa; African Vision Research Institute, University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa
VingFai Chan, Brien Holden Vision Institute, South Africa
Mary Wepo, Brien Holden Vision Institute, South Africa
Kovin S. Naidoo, Brien Holden Vision Institute, South Africa; African Vision Research Institute, University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa


Share this article

Bookmark and Share

Abstract

Background: Successful refractive error programmes arise from evidence that can be collected cost effectively and timely.

Aim: To investigate the prevalence of uncorrected refractive error (URE), presbyopia and spectacle coverage in the Kamuli district, Uganda.

Setting: The study was conducted in the Kamuli district in Uganda.

Methods: The Rapid Assessment of Refractive Error (RARE) study design is a communitybased cross-sectional study using multistage cluster random sampling to gather information on refractive errors and presbyopia. Subjects aged 15 years and older were selected from the population in Kamuli district in Uganda. Vision impairment due to URE at distance and near and barriers to uptake of refractive error services were investigated.

Results: Participants, N = 3281 (57.6% male), with an age range of 15–92 years were enumerated and the response rate was 100%. The prevalence of refractive errors was 4.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7 – 5.5) and the spectacle coverage was 5.96% (95% CI 1.74% – 10.18%). The prevalence of uncorrected presbyopia was 50.3% (95% CI 47.6% – 53.0%) and the spectacle coverage was 0%. Thirty-three (or 1%) respondents were current spectacle users. One-hundred fourteen people (3.5%) had previously used spectacles; however, 50.9% of them discontinued spectacle use a year before the study because the spectacles were broken or scratched. The major barriers to spectacle uptake were accessibility of services and affordability of spectacles.

Conclusion: The prevalence of URE and the barriers to uptake of refractive services will inform the implementation of refractive services in the study area.

Key words: Uncorrected refractive errors; presbyopia and spectacle coverage


Keywords

Uncorrected refractive errors; presbyopia; spectacle coverage

Metrics

Total abstract views: 1902
Total article views: 4410


Crossref Citations

No related citations found.