Parents’ Awareness of and Perspectives on Childhood Refractive Error and Spectacle Wear in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess parents’ awareness of and perspectives on childhood refractive errors in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between October and November 2020 in public schools across different regions of Saudi Arabia. Data were collected using an online questionnaire that assessed parents’ knowledge and perceptions of childhood refractive errors and spectacle wear. Results: A total of 358 parents from different regions of Saudi Arabia completed the questionnaire and were obtained in this study (response rate: 85%). Approximately one third (38.3%) of the parents reported that they had never heard of refractive errors and one-third (33.8%) mentioned that uncorrected refractive errors did not lead to visual impairment. The majority (74.0%) cited using eyeglasses as an effective way to manage childhood refractive errors. Two-thirds (63.7%) stated that they did not receive any information about paediatric eye care. Better knowledge was associated with a higher educational level, female gender and older age (P <0.001, P = 0.008 and P = 0.024, respectively). Regarding parents’ perspective on spectacle wear, 13.7% felt that using eyeglasses affected their children’s chances of learning. However, 82.7% supposed that eyeglasses did not affect their children’s employment opportunities. Almost a quarter of the sample (22.1%) thought that using eyeglasses would decrease the eye’s power, resulting in childhood visual impairment. Conclusion: The level of awareness and perceptions regarding childhood refractive errors and spectacle wear was low among parents. Therefore, a policy is needed to improve the awareness and perception of the key stakeholders in this issue, including parents and teachers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".