INTRODUCTION:

Childhood stages are the innocent stage. Children grow gradually, as they attain life. Each child is a person whose future will be affected for better or worse by the influences that teach his or her life during the childhood¹.

Refractive error (RE) is one of the most common ocular conditions affecting all age groups and a priority under the VISION 2020 initiative. Most REs can be easily corrected at the primary care level with spectacles.

Despite the availability of a cost-effective intervention to address this problem, uncorrected refractive error (URE) is a major public health challenge. Worldwide, unhealed lens problem of the eye and emerging reason for eyesight issues and the major cause for loss of eyesight in developing countries, including India. Eyes related issues and loss of vision results from uncorrected refractive error in children can have serious effect on socio-economic well-being, involving decrease in education and job opportunities of wealthy person. Universally, financial decrease lead to loss in productivity caused by URE was estimated around $584 billion and due to uncorrected myopia as US$22.023 billion².

Myopia was famous since 200 decades and was found anciently. Myopia is a condition in which distant objects are not displayed sharply in the retina behind the optical system of the eye because; the rays converge before they hit the retina. The foremost indication was longsighted. The severity of myopia will increase as the disease progresses. By the middle age, the level of myopia would become critical. Myopia is assessed by checking the visual acuity of the eye.³. Visual acuity is the visual ability to resolve fine details and is the computable assessment of the eyesight to visualize a clear image at a specified space. The accurate meaning of normal visual acuity (twenty/twenty or six/six vision) is the capacity to differentiate the space of letters by various angles and size. The terms 20/20 and 6/6 are obtained from typical sized letters that can be seen by normal eyesight at specific distance⁴.

Myopia severity mainly depends on the work given to eyes such as stress to lens or minute work which strain the eyes such as more usage of mobile and computer, reading in dark etc.⁵

Effect of yoga eye exercises on school going children with and without refractive errors randomized control trials. The findings of this study for letter recognition and reaction time using Snellen’s chart, with various tools, showed the significant difference on strength of eye muscles, strain in eyes and refractive index.⁶

MATERIALS AND METHOD:

The research design used in this study was Pre experimental one group pre-test – post test design. The study was conducted in Alchemy public school, Saravannampatti, Coimbatore. The sampling technique used in this study was Simple random sampling technique consists of 30 children. Standardized tool Snellen chart was used to assess the visual acuity among the children. The data were collected after ethical approval from the concerned people. Pre test level of myopia was valuated using Snellen chart and then intervention was provided. Meir Schneider method is a exercise which consists of the steps such as Palming (10Mins), Massage (10mins), Blinking (5Mins) and shifting (5Mins) done for 30 Mins in two sessions each day for four weeks. After four weeks of session Post test was done for the same children by using the tool.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The result of the present study is on the right eye, the mean score of visual acuity before and after Meir Schneider method was 4.26 and 5.8 respectively with a mean difference of 1.54 and the calculated ‘t’ value is 4.30 which is greater than the table value at 0.05 level of significance.

On the left eye of the children with myopia, the mean score of visual acuity before and after Meir Schneider method was 4.96 and 5.96 respectively with a mean difference of ‘1’ The calculated ‘t’ value is 4.24 which is greater than the table value at 0.05 level of significance.

The frequency and percentage distribution of demographic variables and factors related to vision. Age of the children most of them 17(56.7%) were in the age of 10years. Most of the Sex of the children with myopia were females 16(53.3%). The remaining 14(46.7%) were male children. Studying class children, 17 children (56.7%) studied 5^th standard and 13 children (43.3%) studied 6^th standard. Mostly the children hobbies were drawing, 11(36.7%), reading 7 (23.3%), watching TV 6(20%) and also dancing 5(16.7%) but only one children had hobby of singing 1(3.3%). The most interested games of children were outdoor 20(66.7%) and the least interested games were indoor 7(23.3%) and there were also children with no interest in games 3(10%). Children with myopia had a history of wearing glasses for 1-3 years 20(66.7%) and others are less than 1 year, 4(13.3%) and more than 3 years, 6(20%). Mostly the children are not known about their optical power, 20(66.7%) and remaining children, 10(33.3%) are known. Among 30 children, majority of the children had no history of headache 17(56.7%) and others had history of headache, 13(43.3%). Duration of headache mostly 5-30minutes, 7(53.8%) and remaining 30-60minutes to 60-120 minutes, 3(23.1%). Children with eye infection, 23(76.7%) had history of eye infection and others had no eye infection 7(23.3%). Mostly the children house used tube light as lightning 28(93.3%) and remaining 2 (6.7%) used bulb as lightning. Most of the children duration of watching TV, 1-3hours 16(53.3%) others were more than 3 hours 8(26.7%) and less than 1 hour 6(20%). Among 30 children, distance of watching Tv 12(40%) sits 5-10feet away from the TV while watching TV and the left over 10(33.3%) sits 1-5 feet and 8(26.7%) sits 10-15 feet away from TV. Mostly the children duration of using mobile 12(40%) for 1-3 hours and others 10(33.3%) for more than 3 hours and there were also children who use mobile less than 1hour 8(26.7%). Usage of computer there were children who don’t use computer 17(56.7%), usage of computer less than 1 hour, 7(23.3%), 1-3 hours, 5(16.7%) and more than 3 hours 1(3.3%).

Table 1. Comparison of level of myopia among children with myopia before intervention. N=30

S. No	Level of myopia	Right eye		Left eye
S. No	Level of myopia	f	%	f	%
1	Normal	5	16.7	7	23.3
2	Low	13	43.3	17	56.7
3	High	12	40	6	20

The table shows that, in the right eye 5 (16.7%) children had low myopia, 13 (43.3%) children had high myopia and 12 (40%) children had normal visual acuity. In the left eye 7 (23’3%) had low myopia, 17 (56.7%) had high myopia and 6 (20%) children had normal visual acuity.

Figure 1: Level of myopia (Before Intervention)

Table 2: Comparison of level of myopia among children with myopia after intervention. N=30

S. No	Level of myopia	Right eye		Left eye
S. No	Level of myopia	f	%	f	%
1	Normal	12	40	12	40
2	Low	16	53.3	17	56.7
3	High	2	6.7	1	3.3

The table 2 shows that, in the right eye 12 (40%) children had low myopia, 16 (53.3%) children had high myopia and 2 (6.7%) children had normal visual acuity. In the left eye 12 (40%) had low myopia, 17 (56.7%) had high myopia and 1 (3.3%) children had normal visual acuity.

Figure 2: Level of myopia (After intervention)

Table 3: Comparison of pre test and post test mean and standard deviation scores of level of visual acuity among children using paired ‘t’ test of both eyes N=30

		Mean	Standard deviation	Mean difference	Paired test
Right eye	Before intervention	4.26	1.62	1.54	4.30*
Right eye	After intervention	5.8	1.24	1.54	4.30*
Left eye	Before intervention	4.96	1.56	1	4.24*
Left eye	After intervention	5.96	1.07	1	4.24*

*Significant value

Paired t’ test was used to assess the effect of Meir Schneider method on visual acuity. On the right eye, the mean score of visual acuity before and after Meir Schneider method was 4.26 and 5.8 respectively with a mean difference of 1.54 and the calculated ‘t’ value is 4.30 which is greater than the table value at 0.05 level of significance.

Both the ‘t’ values in right and left eye are found to be significant at 0.05 level. Thus the research hypothesis, ' for 29 degrees of freedom and at 5 percent level of significance the table value is 2 05, since the calculated value is greater than the table Hence alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted. It can be concluded that the Meir Schneider method is effective.

CONCLUSION:

Meir Schneider method was an effective, inexpensive measure for improving the level of visual acuity among children. The present study was predetermined to assess the effectiveness of Meir Schneider method on visual acuity among children at Alchemy Public School. The report of this study revealed with the evidence that Meir Schneider method brings substantial improvement in the child’s visual acuity.

REFERENCES:

1. Bambridge, A. (2002). Approaching Myopia Holistically: A case study and theoretical exploration. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

2. Batra, N. (2007). Refractive Errors in School Children: A review from Punjab, NPCB India, Volume 1, Boxer, B.S., Balliet, R., Clay, A., Emile. (2013). The training of visual acuity in myopia. Journal of American Optometric Association. (53).

3. Felger. (2013, March). An Interdisciplinary under Graduate Research Project on What Causes Myopia and How to Prevent It. American society For Engineering Education, Norwich University.

4. Schmid, K.L., and Brown, B. (2014). "The autonomic control of accommodation and implications for human myopia development: A review”. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics: The Journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists).

5. Rose, K., and Morgan, I.G. (2008). Outdoor Activity Reduces Prevalence of Myopia in Children. Journal of American Academy of Ophthalmology.

6. Vashisht, S.D., and Meenakshi, K. (2008). Magnitude of refractive errors among school children in a rural block of Haryana. The Internet Journal of Epidemiology.

7. Kozier, B., and Erb. (2001). Fundamentals of Nursing, (8th Ed). Boston; Pearson.

8. https://visualacuity.info

9. https://selfhealing.org

10. https://www.fireitupwithcj.com

11. https://inspirenationshow.com

Received on 02.02.2021 Modified on 16.09.2021

Int. J. of Advances in Nur. Management. 2022; 10(1):6-8.

DOI: 10.52711/2454-2652.2022.00002