Methods: We included adults with VI from their second visit of the Singapore Epidemiology of Eye Disease Study. Data on eyecare utilization and spectacle affordability were collected. Low eyecare utilization was defined as no eye check ever or eye checks not even once per year in reference to at least once per year. Difficulty affording glasses was defined as glasses being rated as expensive in reference to not expensive.
Results: There were 985 adults (14.5%; 415 Malays, 260 Indian, and 310 Chinese; mean age [SD]: 69.5 [10.2] years; 55.4% women) with VI who answered the above questions, were included. Of these, 624 (63.4%) wore glasses. The rates of low eyecare utilization and difficulty affording eyeglasses were 31% and 63%, respectively. Compared to Chinese (23.8%) and Indians (18.8%), Malays (57.4%) had the highest rates of low eyecare utilization (P < 0.001), and most difficulty affording eyeglasses (47.2% vs. 26.1% and 26.6% in Chinese and Indians, respectively; P < 0.001). Younger age, low socioeconomic status, absence of diabetes, absence of self-reported eye conditions, and poor vision were independently associated with low eyecare utilization, whereas older age and female sex was associated with difficulty affording glasses.
Conclusions: In this multi-ethnic population with VI, almost one-third had low eyecare utilization and nearly two-thirds reported difficulty affording eyeglasses.
Translational Relevance: This will inform strategies, such as tailored eyecare utilization awareness campaigns and awareness of available subsidy schemes for at-risk Singaporeans, such as Malays.
METHODS: This is a cross sectional study. Myopic children who had been wearing ortho-K and SVSs for 12 months were recruited, and the questionnaires were distributed online. The PREP scores were obtained using a summary scoring method. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine data normality. Unpaired t-test was performed for normally distributed data, and the Mann-Whitney test for non-normally distributed data. P
Methods: A child-sized mannequin head was developed to measure light illuminance levels with and without sun-protective equipment, across a wide range of environments in Singapore, outdoors (open park, under a tree, street) and indoors (under a fluorescent illumination with window, under white LED-based lighting without window). A comparison was made between indoor and outdoor light levels that are experienced while children are involved in day-to-day activities.
Results: Outdoor light levels were much higher (11,080-18,176 lux) than indoors (112-156 lux). The higher lux levels protective of myopia (>1000 lux) were measured at the tree shade (5556-7876 lux) and with hat (4112-8156 lux). Sunglasses showed lux levels between 1792 and 6800 lux. Although with sunglasses readings were lower than tree shade and hat, light levels were still 11 to 43 times higher than indoors.
Conclusions: Recommendations on spending time outdoors for myopia prevention with adequate sun protection should be provided while partaking in outdoor activities, including protection under shaded areas, wearing a hat or sunglasses, sunscreen, and adequate hydration.
Translational Relevance: Light levels outdoors were higher than indoors and above the threshold illuminance for myopia prevention even with adequate sun-protective measures.
METHODS: A self-administrated, internet-based questionnaire was distributed in eight languages, through professional bodies to eye care practitioners globally. The questions examined: awareness of increasing myopia prevalence, perceived efficacy of available strategies and adoption levels of such strategies, and reasons for not adopting specific strategies.
RESULTS: Of the 1336 respondents, concern was highest (9.0 ± 1.6; p
METHODS: A total of 8500 self-administered questionnaires were distributed in eight selected secondary schools. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 2474 (29%) completed questionnaires were collected. The mean age of the respondents was 14.8 ± 1.5 years, and approximately 7.2% were CL wearers. The majority of the wearers were females (76.0%) and wore soft CLs (92.2%). Cosmetic purposes (58.1%) and comfort (24.6%) were the main reasons for wearing CLs. Many of the respondents purchased their lenses from optical shops (50.1%) and beauty accessory shops (15.6%), and approximately 10% did not disinfect their lenses properly. Regarding knowledge about CL care, approximately 56% of the respondents responded correctly.
CONCLUSION: Half of the respondents do not have sufficient knowledge about the risks of wearing CLs. Thus, aggressive public health education aimed at teenagers is needed to prevent improper CL usage.