Socioeconomic factors in childhood cataracts - A descriptive study from a tertiary eye care center in India.

Purpose: While there are a few studies that show the prevalence of blindness and ocular morbidity in children, studies on socioeconomic factors in childhood cataracts are scarce. We aimed to study the socioeconomic status, education and occupation of the parents, consanguinity, and gender inequality among children presenting with cataracts. Methods: This was a hospital-based, prospective, descriptive study of 68 children with cataracts (aged 0-18 years). In addition to the data on clinical parameters and surgical management, we also collected data on age, gender, age at which the chief complaint was noticed, consanguinity of parents, socioeconomic class, and occupation and education of parents. All statistical analyses were performed using MedCalc statistical software (MedCalc Software 2019, Ostend, Belgium). Results: Sixty-eight children with pediatric cataract, out of which 36 were bilateral, were studied. Thirty children (44%) were in the age group of 1-5 years. Out of the 36 bilateral cataracts, 25 (69.44%) were males and 11 (30.56%) were females. Thirty (44.1%) had a delayed presentation. Also, 31% belonged to middle class and 28% belonged to lower middle class. Moreover, 65% of the mothers had an undergraduate education. Conclusion: There is a gender-based inequality and late presentation of childhood cataracts. To improve early detection, red reflex screening should be mandatorily done. Further studies are required to identify barriers to access of eye care specific to girls, in order to plan interventions to improve uptake of treatment. The lower socioeconomic status of the patients should be taken into account in the management of this disease.

Clinical profile and error of inclusion and exclusion in schools for the blind in Bangalore and a review of literature.

Purpose: To determine the causes of severe visual impairment and blindness in children in schools for the blind in the city of Bangalore, Karnataka and to determine the error of inclusion and exclusion from these schools. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. Children in four schools for the blind were subjected to a detailed ophthalmic evaluation. The World Health Organization Program for Prevention of Blindness low-vision form was used to collect data. To know the educational background of children with visual disability of 40% or more (best-corrected visual acuity of ≤6/24 in the better eye), not in schools for the blind, we collected data by telephonic conversation after procuring their phone numbers from our low-vision clinic. Results: One-hundred-seventy-eight children were examined. The major site of anomaly causing blindness in 31% of children was optic nerve, followed by retina (24%), cornea (23%), and whole globe (22%). Avoidable blindness was 35.42%. Thirteen percent of the children with no visual disability were incorrectly enrolled in blind schools. We were able to contact 92 children with a visual disability of ≥40%. Seventy-eight children (84.78%) attended regular schools; these schools were bereft of a specially trained teacher to look after the needs of the blind. Conclusion: Avoidable blindness is still a cause for concern. Children should undergo eye-examination before being enrolled in schools for the blind to avoid errors of inclusion. Though integrated education for children with vision disability is a good approach, it requires teachers trained in teaching skills particular to blindness. Education for the visually impaired in India needs a major revision.