Risk factors for maternal night blindness in rural South India.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with maternal night blindness in rural South India. METHODS: At delivery, women enrolled in a population-based trial of newborn vitamin A supplementation were asked whether they were night blind at any time during the pregnancy. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify socioeconomic, demographic, and pregnancy-related factors associated with maternal night blindness. RESULTS: Women reported night blindness in 687 (5.2%) of 13,171 pregnancies. In a multivariate model, having a concrete roof (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.60, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.47, 0.78), religion other than Hindu (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.76), maternal literacy (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.69), and maternal age from 25 to 29 years (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.50, 0.93) were associated with a lower risk of night blindness in pregnancy. The odds of night blindness were higher for those leasing rather than owning land (OR: 1.78, 95%CI: 1.08, 2.93), parity 6 or more compared to 0 (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.09, 4.08), and with twin pregnancies (OR: 3.23, 95% CI: 1.93, 5.41). Factors not associated with night blindness in the multivariate model were other markers of socioeconomic status such as electricity in the house, radio and television ownership, type of cooking fuel and household transportation, and number of children under 5 years of age in the household. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal night blindness was prevalent in this population. Being pregnant with twins and of higher parity put women at higher risk. Maternal literacy and higher socioeconomic status lowered the risk.

Ocular trauma in a rural south Indian population: the Aravind Comprehensive Eye Survey.

PURPOSE: To determine the rate of ocular trauma in a rural population of southern India and its impact on vision impairment and blindness. METHODS: A population-based cross-sectional study of 5150 persons 40 years or older in a randomly chosen rural population of 3 districts of southern India. Prospective information on trauma, type and agent of injury, setting of injury, and details of treatment sought for the last episode was recorded with questionnaires after face-to-face interviews. All interviewed subjects underwent a comprehensive ocular examination, including vision estimations, slit-lamp biomicroscopy examinations, and dilated posterior segment examinations. RESULTS: We elicited a history of ocular trauma in either eye from 229 (4.5%) persons, including 21 (0.4%) persons with bilateral ocular trauma. Blunt injuries (n = 124; 54.9%) were the major cause for trauma reported in this population. The most common setting where the ocular trauma occurred was during agricultural labor (n = 107; 46.9%). Nearly three quarters (n = 170; 74.2%) of those reporting ocular trauma sought treatment from an eye specialist (n = 104; 57.8%) and one fifth (n = 37; 20.6%) from a traditional healer. The age-adjusted (adjusted to the population estimates for India for the year 2000) prevalence for blindness in any eye caused by trauma was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-1.1). The odds ratios (OR) for trauma were higher for males (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.6-3.0) and laborers (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4) and lower for literates (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5- 0.9). Seeking treatment from a traditional eye healer for trauma was not associated with vision impairment (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.3-3.2) or with blindness (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 0.2-56.5). CONCLUSIONS: Eye care programs may need to consider ocular trauma as a priority in this population, because the lifetime prevalence of ocular trauma is higher than that reported for glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, or diabetic retinopathy from this population. Simple measures such as education regarding the use of protective eyewear could possibly significantly decrease this preventable cause of visual disability.