An interventional study of spectacles in Under- and Uncorrected Significant Refractive Errors, sponsored by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Completed at 1 site in Tanzania. Open to participants aged 0 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2005-11-07.
Sponsored by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two interventions, namely providing free spectacles or only a prescription to students with insufficiently corrected or uncorrected significant refractive errors.
Introduction Worldwide uncorrected significant refractive errors (RE) are among the commonest causes of visual impairment. This combined with the effectiveness and simplicity of correcting RE by providing spectacles has made the correction of RE one of the priorities of Vision 2020. However, little information is available on effective strategies for identifying and delivering optical services to affected individuals in developing countries
Aim The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two interventions, namely providing free spectacles or only a prescription to students with insufficiently corrected or uncorrected significant refractive errors
Objectives
Methods The study took place in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania between January and September 2004. 52 schools were randomly selected into 2 intervention groups (Group A and B) using random selection stratified by school status (government vs. private). Students were screened for significant refractive errors. A socio-economic questionnaire was administered to all the students. Students who needed spectacles in Group A schools received free spectacles (intervention A), while students in group B schools received only a prescription for spectacles (intervention B). Students were followed up 3 and 6 months after spectacles provision/prescription to check their compliance and to explore reasons for non-compliance.
Main analyses of data were the prevalence of visual impairment and its causes, risk factors for myopia, and compliance with spectacles at 3 and at 6 months.
Results
Prevalence of impaired visual acuity and causes 6,904 students were screened by the eye team. 2.9% of students had uncorrected poor VA, 2.3% had poor presenting VA and 0.6% still had poor VA with best correction. The main cause of visual impairment was significant refractive error (84%).
The prevalence of uncorrected significant RE in secondary school students in Dar es Salaam was low at 1.8%. Even assuming that all students with unconfirmed poor presenting screening eyesight (0.8%) had uncorrected significant RE which is unlikely the maximum prevalence would be estimated at 2.6%.
Compliance with spectacles
Students who had actually purchased their spectacles were up to twice as likely to wear them at 3 and at 6 months as students who had received free spectacles, but only a small proportion had purchased them (3 months: 30%; 6 months: 45%). Only 46% of students who had received free spectacles wore them or had them at school at 3 months and 53% at 6 months. Significant independent predictors of students wearing or having their spectacles at school 3 to 6 months after prescription or provision of free spectacles were:
Conclusions/ Recommendation
413 studies on the registry are indexed under Refractive Errors; 62 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 250 is above the median of 82 across 296 interventional studies indexed under Refractive Errors.
Browse Refractive Errors studies →London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is the lead sponsor of 296 studies on the registry; 15 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
The proportion of students who had been given/prescribed spectacles who were wearing spectacles 3 and 6 months later
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2004. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine