A cross-sectional survey of the prevalence of eye injuries among primary school children in two noncontiguous local government areas of Enugu State of Nigeria was undertaken. One of the local government areas was urban, while the other one was rural. Children who were <15 years in two randomly selected primary schools in the urban area and three randomly selected schools in the rural area were interviewed and examined with Snellen chart, pen torch, head loupe, and direct ophthalmoscope. The findings were recorded using a semi-structured questionnaire and the World Health Organization Programme for Prevention of Blindness (WHO/PBL) eye examination form. Training on visual acuity measurement was done for each of the class teachers. A total of 1,236 children <15 years of age were studied and analyzed. Slightly more females, 652 (52.8%), than males, 584 (47.2%), constituted the sample population giving a female/male ratio of 1.1:1. A total of 98 (7.93%) children had evidence of injury to the eye or its adnexa. Eyelid scar was the commonest (5.34%) followed by eyebrow scar (2.10%). Canthal scar was the next (0.32%). Two girls had monocular blindness from eye trauma (0.16%). One had leucoma, while the other had a dislocated lens. All the monocular blind children of this study were from the urban area. The home was the commonest environment for an eye injury (69.39%) followed by the school (20.41%). The farm was next in frequency (7.14%), especially among boys in the rural area. The church and the road/street constituted the remainder. Regarding persons causing the injury, the child’s playmate was the commonest (55.10%) followed by self (27.55%). Parents and guardians were the next (9.18%). These were injuries associated with corporal punishment. Corporal punishment-related eye injury, according to this study, appears to be common in the rural area and affects boys predominantly. Other human intermediary agents that cause an eye injury include passersby (2.04%), RTA (2.04%), siblings (2.04%), and others (1.02%). The primary agents that caused an eye injury were sticks/wood, 29 (29.60%); stone, 21 (21.43%); pieces of metal, 19 (19.39%); fall, 10 (10.20%); fight/fist blow, 9 (9.918%); plastic, 2 (2.04%); fingernails, 2 (2.04%); farm tools/fruits, 2 (2.04%); and RTA, glass, and headbutt, each 1.02%. Farm implements/fruits as well as fingernails appear to be fairly common primary agents that cause an eye injury in the rural Enugu, Nigeria. In terms of prevalence, there was no significant difference between the urban and rural areas. The findings from this study showed a high prevalence of eye injury among primary school children. In terms of treatment, 58.16% of the children with an eye injury had no form of treatment for it. The children from this study with monocular blindness did not receive adequate medical treatment. Treatment of an eye injury, according to this study, was sought from chemists (19.39%), at hospital/health centers (16.33%), at home (3.06%), and from traditional healers (3.06%). The persons who treated a...

No abstract

Aim: The aim of this article is to determine the knowledge of hand hygiene (HH) practices among eye care workers in a tertiary eye hospital in Nigeria. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of eye care workers at a tertiary eye hospital in Nigeria. Eye care workers, involved with clinical duties, responded to the WHO Hand Hygiene Knowledge questionnaire containing 24 multiple choice questions on HH knowledge. Each correct answer earned one point; zero was given for a wrong answer. Overall scores were expressed in percentage. An overall score of ≥75% was considered as good; 50–74% moderate; and <50% poor knowledge. Data analysis was with SPSS version 23. Results: Fifty-eight workers participated. Thirty-nine (67.2%) were females and 19 (32.8%) were males; the age range was 25–68 years; mean 39.6 ± 7.4 years. The average work experience was 15.3 ± 8.9 years; range 1–40 years. The mean knowledge score was 12.0 ± 2.9 (50%) which is moderate knowledge; range 3–18. Workers who had received training in HH had a significantly higher mean knowledge score than those who did not receive training (12.8 ± 2.3 vs. 11.3 ± 3.2; P = 0.04). There was no statistically significant association between knowledge of HH and age, sex, work experience, and professional category (P > 0.05). Conclusion: HH knowledge of the eye care workers studied is sub-optimal. This has negative implication for hospital infection control. Eye care workers’ knowledge of HH can be improved through formal training and frequent rehearsals.

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the awareness, prevalence, and pattern of ocular problems related to computer [computer vision syndrome (CVS)] use among bank workers in Onitsha, Nigeria. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving bank staff in Onitsha metropolis who were selected using a simple random technique. A validated CVS questionnaire was used to obtain information on sociodemographic characteristics, frequency and duration of computer use, eye symptoms, and preventive measures. Results: There were 150 bank staff selected: 81 (54.0%) females and 69 (46.0%) males, aged 20–49 years (mean= 33.2 ± 7.2 years). All participants used computer daily. Daily computer use was 1–16 h. Seventy-nine (53.4%) workers were aware of CVS; 127 (84.7%) used preventive measures which included anti-reflective eye glasses (12.7%) and computer screen guard (22.3%). Symptoms with computer use were reported by 103 (68.7%) participants. The prevalence of CVS was 29.3%. Headache (45.4%), itching (38.6%), photophobia (38.0%), visual blur (37.3%), and eye pains (28.0%) were the commonest symptoms. There was a trend towards CVS being commoner in female gender (P = 0.059), with prolonged computer use, and failure to use preventive measures. CVS is 6-fold more likely to occur in individuals who wear corrective lenses. Conclusion: CVS is common among the bank workers studied. Use of protective measures that minimize exposure to electromagnetic force radiation from computer screens is suggested. A computer screen guard is recommended as a minimum preventive measure for long-term computer users.