Purpose: The major goal of this study was to investigate and compare the prevalence of cataract and its associated factors among the rural and urban population.Material & Methods: An Observational cross-sectional study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of cataract among the rural and urban population.A total of 9023 (mean age: 55±2.51 years) patients (male=4848 & female=4175) were enrolled in this study.The subjects underwent a comprehensive eye examination.Information on the patient's lifestyle, habits, indoor & outdoor activities, socioeconomic status and systemic diseases were collected using a self-structured questionnaire.The collected data were analyzed to explore the factors associated with cataract using the Pearson Chi-square test for each factor through SPSS version 17.0.Results: Out of the total 9023 enrolled in the study, only 3348 (37.1%) were from rural while 5675 (62.9%) were from urban backgrounds.The majority of the participants (80%) did not have any history of addiction.Only 12% consumed smokeless tobacco (nonsmokers) products, 7% were habitual smokers, and 1% to alcohol.Amongst those having cataracts, the majority of patients had cortical cataracts (66.2%), followed by nuclear (27.1%) and a small number (6.6%) of posterior subcapsular cataracts.As per the study's findings, the overall prevalence of cataracts in the rural population is much higher, 93.5%, compared to the urban population, where it is only 57.1%.All parameters were found to be statistically significant with the Pearson Chi-square test.A p-value of < 0.05 was considered as significant.Conclusion: Amongst the general population prevalence of senile cataracts is relatively high, and cortical cataract is the commonest type of senile cataract.The prevalence of cataracts is higher in the outdoor workers, and patients with lower socioeconomic status.Patients addicted to the tobacco, alcohol and cigarette smoking is also affected from the cataract conditions in rural population greater than the urban population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: