Eye-glasses wear compliance following school-based visual acuity screening in Nepal: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Eye-glasses wear compliance is found to be low among children in school-based eye screening programs who are provided spectacles free of charge. METHODS: Thirty-six schools from school visual acuity screening program in Nepal were randomly selected to receive no follow-up (standard) or follow-up by an optometry team at 3 months. In the intervention group (that received the follow-up), ophthalmic personal made unannounced visits to the schools at 3 months to determine spectacle compliance .Direct examination to determine compliance with spectacle wear 6 months was done. The primary reason for noncompliance from a list of possibilities was identified using a questionnaire. RESULTS: Among 297 (145 control and 152 intervention) students that received glasses in the 36 schools, 128/152 (84%) were available for examination at 3 months in the intervention group. A total of 216/297 (73%) students were available for examination at 6 months (73 % and 72% of the control and intervention groups, respectively). Within the intervention group, 51% of children at 3 months and 57% at 6 months were wearing glasses during the unannounced visits. The main source of refractive error was myopia. Out of 66 children with astigmatism, 24 (36%) were wearing glasses. There was no statistically significant difference in compliance (p=0.85) between private and public schools, but compliance correlated better with the educational status of careers. CONCLUSION: A follow-up visit to the school by eye care personnel did not improve spectacle wear compliance among children .Other factors may also be responsible for poor compliance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".