Discussion
The overall prevalence of SDE in this study was 49.2% (95% CI 43.5% to 54.9%). The use of ophthalmic drops and class (study) year were factors that were significantly associated with SDE. This finding is important for strategists to plan future interventions and for clinicians to offer information-based decisions for clients.
The overall prevalence of SDE in this study is comparable to those studies conducted on Ghanaian undergraduate University students,12 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia17 and in College students in India,18 as well as to that of the Nigerian adult population.19 The consistent results may be due to applying the OSDI questionnaire in the diagnosis of DED.
However, this study revealed a lower prevalence of SDE when compared with the research results conducted in other countries like the study result that was done on university students in Mexico (70.4%),20 in Chinese high school students (70.5%),21 in Chiang Mai University medical students, Thailand (70.8%)22; in medical students in a tertiary hospital in India (56.81%),23 in Palestine (64%),8 in Dubai (62.6%)24 and in Ghana (69.3%)11 using OSDI questionnaire. The lack of uniformity in the results may be due to the difference in the age of participants. For instance, studies that were conducted in Dubai and India included a population aged above 40 years, who are at high risk of DED. In addition, it may be due to differences in sample size, humidity and use of a visual display terminal for an online lecture.
In contrast, this study revealed a higher prevalence of SDE when compared with a systematic review and meta-analysis in China (17%)7 and the research outcomes reported in the USA (6.8%),25 in Brazil4 (12.8%), in Open University in Thailand (17.5%),26 in university students in Bangkok, Thailand (8.15%),13 in Indonesia (27.5%),9 in Singapore (12.3%),10 in India (40.9%),27 in Philippines (22.9%),28 in Malaysia secondary referral hospital (33.8%),29 in Saudi Arabian population (32.1%),30 in Lebanon (36.4%),31 in South-West Nigeria (28.2%)32 and in South Nigeria (27.4%).33 The discrepancy across the study outcomes might be due to differences in the study period and data collection tools. For example, the study that was done in India reported DED based on objective and subjective tests while that of Malaysia used objective tests alone. Furthermore, the geographical differences of the country and differences in the age of participants may be considered contributing factor for the occurrence of DED. On the other hand, the higher prevalence of DED in the current study may be subject to shifting the teaching-learning process to primarily digital due to the SARS-CoV-19 pandemic.
In this study, class year (ie, second-year and third-year student) and use of ophthalmic drops were factors that were primarily associated with SDE in multivariable logistic regression analysis.
As of the study that was conducted in Mexico,20 also in this study, the use of ophthalmic drops doubles the occurrence of SDE when compared with unused participants. As described by Kofi et al13 the occurrence of SDE among self-medicated undergraduate university students was found be more than four times. The association might be due to nearly similar mean age in study participants of that of Mexico, Ghana and this study. However, a study that was held in South-West Nigeria32 indicated that those who had been on ophthalmic drops prior to the study were found to be 4% less likely diagnosed with dry eye. This discrepancy might be due to the double utilisation of spectacles by the study participants in that conducted in Nigeria when compared with the current study.
In addition, in this research, the class year (study year) of the students revealed a statistically significant association with SDE. Being a second-year and third-year student was 6 times and 12 times more likely to be significantly associated with SDE when compared with sixth-year students. This might be due to the fact that second-year and third-year students spent a long time reading which reduces blinking rate, and in turn, provides an opportunity for dryness of the eye when they are compared with sixth-year students, who spent much of their time on clinical practice.
On the other hand, in this study, more than 6 hours of visual display device use had been not associated with SDE disease. We hypothesise that it could be due to low cumulative years of visual display devices used in the study population because it is common for students in low-income countries such as Ethiopia to have personal visual display devices such as personal computers and Smartphone’s when they join the university. Moreover, the authors recommend further research on class year versus visual display use of students for academic purposes per day.
Overall, this study provides an indication of how severe is SDE among the study population and further gives a clue on the risk factors of SDE for ophthalmologists, optometrists and other eye care professionals who are engaged in treating clients.
This study was conducted using a questionnaire that is widely available in ophthalmology clinics globally and recommended as a gold standard tool in the diagnosis of DED. However, its’ major limitations are that the data were collected from a single medical university hence not representing all universities in Ethiopia, not separating out specific eye-drops that are associated with DED, and never performing the clinical evaluation. As a result, it needs further studies that will incorporate all medical universities in Ethiopia and explore specific eye-drops that are associated with DED, and further diagnosis of DED using clinical assessment techniques to explore the relationship between symptoms and signs of DED. Also, the authors recommend researchers execute further studies on SDE versus the academic performance of students.