Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11189/5824
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNsubunga, Naomi-
dc.contributor.authorRamson, Prasidh-
dc.contributor.authorGovender, Pirindha-
dc.contributor.authorChan, VingFai-
dc.contributor.authorWepo, Mary-
dc.contributor.authorNaidoo, Kovin S.-
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-29T08:34:12Z-
dc.date.available2017-06-29T08:34:12Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.issn2410-1516-
dc.identifier.urihttp:// dx.doi.org/10.4102/aveh. v75i1.327-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11189/5824-
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAfrican Vision and Eye Healthen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/za/-
dc.subjectUncorrected Refractive Error (URE)en_US
dc.subjectPresbyopia coveringen_US
dc.subjectSpectacle coverageen_US
dc.subjectKamuli districten_US
dc.subjectUgandaen_US
dc.titleUncorrected refraction errors, presbyopia and spectacle coverage in Kamuli District, Ugandaen_US
dc.type.patentArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:HWSci - Journal Articles (DHET subsidised)
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

127
Last Week
0
Last month
4
checked on Aug 15, 2026

Download(s)

69
checked on Aug 15, 2026

Google ScholarTM

Check


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons