Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis profiles myopic Australians, examining health conditions and quality of life implications.
Background Data on myopia prevalence in Australia and associations with common systemic conditions and quality of life are limited. This study aimed to profile Australian adults self-reporting to have myopia, including co-morbidities and quality of life. Methods This research included participants from the ongoing longitudinal 45 and Up Study. Sex and education data were collected at the baseline survey and additional data from the follow-up Health Compass survey. Responses on self-reported myopia, health and quality of life were analysed with logistic regression to assess the association between myopia and health conditions. Results Of the 21,384 participant responses, 54.3% self-reported myopia, with higher rates in females and younger individuals. Self-reported myopes were more likely to have achieved higher levels of education, reside in urban and less remote regions and rate their quality of life and overall health worse than non-myopes. Education level was the strongest predictor of self-reported myopia. They were also more likely to report having visual or physical impairment, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes and cancer. Non-myopic participants were less likely to report any disabilities or impairments and health conditions. Conclusion The prevalence of self-reported myopia in Australian adults appears high and likely an overestimation. As commonly observed, self-reported myopia was higher in educated urban populations, with a greater propensity in females than males in the younger cohorts. Poorer quality of life and health ratings in self-reported myopes align with previous findings. The higher rates of health conditions in self-reported myopes may reflect shared lifestyle and environmental risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: