| Literature DB >> 30477452 |
Mengistu Zelalem Wale1, Yekoye Abebe2, Yilikal Adamu3, Abebe Zelalem4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there are limited studies, recent data are lacking to accurately determine the magnitude of color blindness in Ethiopia and there is no evidence of such a study in Gish Abay town district. The purpose of thie study was to assess the prevalence of color blindness among school children in Gish Abaya town district, Ethiopia.Entities:
Keywords: Color blindness; Ethiopia; Prevalence; School children; Visual impairment
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30477452 PMCID: PMC6257947 DOI: 10.1186/s12886-018-0970-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
The frequency of color blindness among male and female school children in the three primary schools of Gish Abay town district, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia, 2016
| Variables | School name | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zeleke Desta % ( | Gumbella % ( | Hamus Wonze % ( | ||||
| % ( | % ( | |||||
| Literacy Level /Grades/ | 3rd to 4th | 6 (16.7%) | 4 (11.1%) | 4 (11.1%) | 14 (38.9%) | 1.65% |
| 5th to 8th | 5 (13.9%) | 9 (25%) | 8 (22.2%) | 22 (61.1%) | 2.59% | |
| Total | 11 (30.6%) | 13 (36.1%) | 12 (33.3%) | 36 (100%) | 4.24% | |
| Sex | M | 7 (19.5%) | 10 (27.8%) | 10 (27.8%) | 27 (75%) | 3.18% |
| F | 4 (11.1%) | 3 (8.3%) | 2 (5.5%) | 9 (25%) | 1.06% | |
| Age | 8–13 | 9 (25%) | 11 (30.6%) | 5 (13.9%) | 25 (69.4%) | 2.94% |
| 14–18 | 2 (5.6%) | 2 (5.6%) | 7 (19.4%) | 11 (30.6%) | 1.3% | |
Fig. 1Frequency of color blindness in the three primary schools of Gish- Abay town district, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia, 2016
Fig. 2Sex based difference of color blindness in the three primary schools of Gish-Abay town district Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia, 2016
Multiple binary logistic regression analysis of factors associated with color blindness, in the three primary schools of Gish Abay town district, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia, 2016
| Variables | Color vision | OR (95% CI) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Color blind | ||||||
|
| % |
| % | ||||
| Sex | F | 390 | 45.78% | 9 | 1.05% | 1 | 0.004** |
| M | 424 | 50% | 27 | 3.17% | 3.19 (1.45–6.98) | ||
| Age | 8–18 | 814 | 95.78% | 36 | 4.22% | 0.805 (0.68–0.94) | 0.008** |
| Grade | 3–8 | 814 | 95.78% | 36 | 4.22% | 0.9 (0.65–1.25) | 0.54 |
| VI | No | 752 | 88.5% | 28 | 3.3% | 1 | 0.001** |
| Yes | 62 | 7.28% | 8 | 0.92% | 4.15 (1.77–9.75) | ||
Legend: *Significant at 95% level of significance, **significant at 1% level of significance, 1 = reference; VI Visual Impairment, OR Odds Ratio, CI, Confidence Interval
Summary of color vision test from plate 1–17 in the three primary schools of Gish Abay town, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia, 2016
| Charts | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nos | 12 | 8 | 29 | 5 | 3 | 15 | 74 | 6 | 45 | 5 | 7 | 16 | 73 |
|
|
| Read correctly | 850 | 840 | 811 | 833 | 728 | 822 | 689 | 825 | 803 | 830 | 834 | 823 | 566 | 802 | 801 |
| Misread | – | 1 | 29 | 5 | 105 | 8 | 131 | 9 | 32 | 6 | 4 | 14 | 269 | 1 | 3 |
| RGB no. | 12 | 3 | 70 | 2 | 5 | 17 | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | 45 |
| RGB Read | – | 9 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 17 | 28 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 47 | 46 |
| C.weaknes | – | – | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Chart nos | Nos | Read correctly | Misread | Strong deutans | Strong protans | ||||||||||
| 16 | 26 | 832 | 5 | 9 | 4 | ||||||||||
| 17 | 42 | 836 | 1 | 9 | 4 | ||||||||||
Legend: Nos (Numbers written in the color chart); X (Can’t read any number); Read Correctly (Number of children who read correctly); Misread (who missed the normal number); RGB no (Red Green Blind Number) → numbers that must be read by Red Green Blind Subjects; RGB read (number of children who read RGB numbers); and C. weakness (Color weakness)
As indicated in Table 3, for plate number 3 as an example, there were 811 students with normal color vision to read plate number 3 as 29 and there were 29 students who misread this plate. There were 8 red green deficient students who read plate number 3 as 70 instead of 29 and there were 2 individuals who were unable to read any number in this plate (color weakness). For chart numbers 16 and 17, there were 9 students who read plate 16 as 2 instead of 26, and plate 17 as 4 instead of 42. These students are strong deuteranopes. There were 4 students who read plate 16 as 6 instead of 26 and plate 17 as 2 instead of 42. These individuals are strong protanopes. There were 832 students who read correctly plate 16 as 26 and there were 5 students who misread this plate. There were 836 students who read plate 17 correctly as 42 and there was 1 student who misread it