Back

Assessing The Accessibility, Affordability, And Acceptability Of Refractive Services As Barriers To Uptake Of These Services In Kakamega Municipality, Kenya

Khan, N. E.; Kisenge, M. M.

2024-07-24 ophthalmology
10.1101/2024.07.24.24310925 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background informationRefractive errors and presbyopia remain a burden to the entire population. An estimated 76% of the 191 million blind people have preventable or treatable causes. Uncorrected Refractive Error (URE), the number one cause (51%) of moderate and severe vision impairment is easily preventable. AimThe study aimed to evaluate the accessibility, affordability, and acceptability of refractive services in Kakamega Municipality. MethodologyA population-based descriptive cross-sectional study was undertaken in Kakamega municipality using a cluster sampling method and descriptive data analysis. ResultsOut of 358 participants, 199 (55.6%) were male and 159 (44.4%) were female. The analysis shows affordability (18.3%) as the main reason for not using spectacles, followed by lack of quality care (3.4%), access to eye care (3.4%), awareness (2.5%), unpleasant past experiences (2.2%), importance not given to eye care issues (1.6%), lack of communication (0.9%), and disapproval from family members (0.9%). The study found that the affordable price range for spectacles varies between Kshs.5000 and less than Kshs.2000. More participants (38.0%) reported above Kshs.5000, while 29% indicated less Kshs.2000. The study found that affordability (p = 0.000), availability (p=0.004), and accessibility (p=0.005) of refractive services significantly influenced the uptake of these services. ConclusionThe study reveals that refractive services in Kakamega municipality are not easily accessible due to the lack of adequate services in government hospitals. Additionally, patients in the municipality struggle to afford spectacles due to the direct cost of spectacles and the lack of services in easily accessible public facilities.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.