Prevalence, care-seeking practices and impact of self-reported vision impairment in Southwest Cameroon: a community-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To establish the prevalence of self-reported vision impairment (VI) in Southwest Cameroon and describe associated care-seeking practices, functional limitations and economic hardships. DESIGN: A three-stage clustered sampling household community-based survey. SETTING: The Southwest region of Cameroon. PARTICIPANTS: 8046 individuals of all ages residing in the Southwest region of Cameroon. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of self-reported VI, onset of vision loss, care-seeking practices, diagnosis and treatment, functional limitations, economic hardships on household, beliefs about surgical treatability of blindness and barriers to surgical care. RESULTS: The estimated prevalence of self-reported VI in Southwest Cameroon was 0.87% (95% CI 0.62 to 1.21). Among participants aged ≥40 years, the prevalence increased to 2.61% (95% CI 1.74 to 3.90). Less than a quarter of affected participants reported difficulty working (20.5%) or trouble going to school (12.0%) as a result of their VI. Yet, over half (52%, n=43) of affected households experienced significant economic hardships due to the VI. Residing in an urban setting (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30) and belonging to a higher socioeconomic status (aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26) were factors associated with the belief that certain types of blindness were surgically reversible. Formal care was not sought by 16.3% (n=8) of affected participants. Cataracts was the leading diagnosis among participants who did seek formal care (43.2%, n=16), although 93.8% of these cases were not surgically treated, primarily due to a lack of perceived need. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of individuals who report vision impairment in Southwest Cameroon is considerably lower than prior published estimates based on visual physical examinations. Routine community-level screening and cost financing schemes could improve detection of pre-clinical eye disease and the utilisation of surgical care. It could also pre-empt disability and economic hardships associated with advanced VI in the region.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".