MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415126305 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0334509

Prevalence and causes of blindness and vision impairment in Western Uganda: Findings from a rapid assessment of avoidable blindness (RAAB) survey

2025· article· en· W4415126305 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Bondok, Moses Kasadhakawo, John Onyango, Oscar Turya, Khumbo Kalua

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlindnessVisual impairmentEye carePsychological interventionPublic healthVision disorderMEDLINEEye disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence and causes of blindness and vision impairment (VI) among adults aged ≥50 years in Western Uganda. METHODS: A population-based cross-sectional survey was conducted in Western Uganda (July-August 2023) using RAAB7. Adults aged ≥50 years who had resided in the study districts for at least six months in the past year were eligible. Participants were identified through door-to-door household visits using a two-stage cluster sampling approach. Primary outcomes include prevalence of blindness and VI and its causes. Secondary outcomes include cataract surgical coverage (CSC), effective CSC (eCSC), refractive error coverage (REC), and effective REC (eREC). RESULTS: A total of 3,125 participants were examined (54.1% female). The adjusted prevalence of blindness (presenting visual acuity (PVA) <3/60) was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.5-1.3%). Severe, moderate, and mild VI were found in 0.9% (95% CI: 0.4-1.3%), 4.5% (95% CI: 3.3-5.8%), and 3.8% (95% CI: 3.0-4.6%), respectively. Untreated cataract was the leading cause of bilateral blindness (49.4%). The CSC and eCSC at the < 6/12 threshold were 19.7% and 7.3%, respectively. Only 19.4% of 108 operated eyes achieved good outcomes (PVA ≥ 6/12). The main barriers to cataract surgery included lack of awareness (32.8%), cost (23.9%), and perceived lack of need (20.9%). The adjusted prevalence of uncorrected refractive error as a cause of moderate VI was 1.6% (95% CI: 1.1-2.0%), and mild VI was 2.8% (95% CI: 2.2-3.5%). REC was 1.0%, while eREC was 0.6% (95% CI: 0.0-1.4%). CONCLUSION: Blindness and vision impairment remain major public health issues in Western Uganda, primarily due to untreated cataract and uncorrected refractive error. Poor post-operative outcomes highlight the urgent need to improve surgical quality. These findings may guide targeted interventions and policy to strengthen eye care services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207