Refractive Error and Presbyopia Among Adults in Fiji

Author： Brian Garry Pearce Matthew G. Ramke Jacqueline

ISSN： 0928-6586

Source： Ophthalmic Epidemiology, Vol.18, Iss.2, 2011-04, pp. : 75-82

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize refractive error, presbyopia and their correction among adults aged ≥≥ 40 years in Fiji, and contribute to a regional overview of these conditions.Methods: A population-based cross-sectional survey using multistage cluster random sampling. Presenting distance and near vision were measured and dilated slitlamp examination performed.Results: The survey achieved 73.0% participation (n == 1381). Presenting binocular distance vision ≥≥ 6/18 was achieved by 1223 participants. Another 79 had vision impaired by refractive error. Three of these were blind. At threshold 6/18, 204 participants had refractive error. Among these, 125 had spectacle-corrected presenting vision ≥≥ 6/18 (““met refractive error need””); 79 presented wearing no (n == 74) or under-correcting (n == 5) distance spectacles (““unmet refractive error need””). Presenting binocular near vision ≥≥ N8 was achieved by 833 participants. At threshold N8, 811 participants had presbyopia. Among these, 336 attained N8 with presenting near spectacles (““met presbyopia need””); 475 presented with no (n == 402) or under-correcting (n == 73) near spectacles (““unmet presbyopia need””). Rural residence was predictive of unmet refractive error (p == 0.040) and presbyopia (p == 0.016) need. Gender and household income source were not. Ethnicity-gender-age-domicile-adjusted to the Fiji population aged ≥≥ 40 years, ““met refractive error need”” was 10.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.7––11.9%), ““unmet refractive error need”” was 4.8% (95%CI 3.6––5.9%), ““refractive error correction coverage”” was 68.3% (95%CI 54.4––82.2%),””met presbyopia need”” was 24.6% (95%CI 22.4––26.9%), ““unmet presbyopia need”” was 33.8% (95%CI 31.3––36.3%), and ““presbyopia correction coverage”” was 42.2% (95%CI 37.6––46.8%).Conclusion: Fiji refraction and dispensing services should encourage uptake by rural dwellers and promote presbyopia correction. Lack of comparable data from neighbouring countries prevents a regional overview.