Aim To estimate the prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS) in university students and its relationship with sociodemographic and optical correction factors and exposure to video display terminal (VDT). Methods This cross‐sectional study included 244 Spanish university students who responded to an anamnesis, a VDT exposure questionnaire and the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS‐Q©). A descriptive analysis was performed and the prevalence of CVS was calculated. Logistic regression models were used to measure the association between CVS and the variables studied. Results The mean age was 20.7 years (SD = 2.1), 57% were women, 78.3% used VDTs ≥ 2 hours/day to study. The prevalence of CVS was 76.6%, and the most frequent symptoms were headache and itching. In the crude analysis, being a woman, using glasses daily and to study, and a longer VDT use to study and in total were associated with a higher prevalence of CVS; while in the older group, the prevalence was lower. In the multivariate model, VDT use to study was associated with a greater probability of CVS (aOR: 3.43; 95%CI: 1.03‐11.42), and being between 22 and 29 years was associated with a lower probability of it (aOR: 0.36; 95%CI: 0.15‐0.89). Conclusion CVS has a high prevalence amongst Spanish university students. The most affected are the younger ones and those who use VDTs for longer hours to study. It is essential to continue investigating the influence of the type of tasks conducted with VDTs on CVS and thus to establish the preventive measures to reduce this syndrome.

Purpose To translate, cross-culturally adapt and validate the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q©) into Persian. Methods This study was carried out in 2 phases: (1) the CVS-Q© was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Persian and (2) the validity and reliability of CVS-Q FA© were assessed in a cross-sectional validation study. An expert committee composed of 15 optometrists evaluated content validity (item-level (I-CVI) and scale-level (S-CVI) content validity index were calculated). A pretest was performed (n = 20 participants) to verify the comprehensibility of the questionnaire. A total of 102 computer users completed the final questionnaire. Criterion validity and diagnostic performance of the CVS-Q FA© were assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity and receiver characteristic operator curve. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the assessment of internal consistency and 46 participants refilled the questionnaire for the second time and the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's kappa (κ) were evaluated for test–retest reliability. Results The translation and cross-cultural adaptation process was performed successfully according to accepted scientific recommendations without any major difficulties. The I-CVI was above 0.80 for all items (symptoms) except item 15 (feeling that sight is worsening) and the S-CVI was 0.92. The CVS-Q FA© showed good sensitivity (81.1%) and acceptable specificity (69.2%). Also, it achieved good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80) and test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.81 and κ = 0.65). Conclusion The CVS-Q FA© was successfully translated, cross-culturally adapted, and validated into Persian. This study provides a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of computer vision syndrome among the Iranian working population.

The use of digital devices affects eye health; this can influence the performance of workers. To assess this impact, validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires are needed. The purpose of this study was to validate the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q©) using Rasch analysis. Two hundred and forty-one Italian workers completed an ad hoc questionnaire on anamnesis and exposure to digital devices, and the Italian version of the CVS-Q©. Subsequently, a battery involving three clinical ocular surface and tear tests was performed. The reliability and validity of the scale was assessed using the Andrich Rating Scale Model, and the prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS) was calculated. A good fit of both items and persons to the predictions of the Rasch model was observed, with acceptable reliability, unidimensionality, and no or minimal severe differences as a function of gender or age; moreover, good test–retest repeatability, adequate values of sensitivity, reliability, and area under the curve, and adequate construct validity based on clinical tests were obtained. Workers with a questionnaire score ≥ 7 were found to present with CVS. The prevalence of CVS was 76.6%. The CVS-Q IT© is a valid and reliable scale to assess CVS in Italian workers who use digital devices.

Background and Objectives: The prolonged use of digital screens can cause a set of visual and ocular symptoms known as Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS), which is a common health issue among computer users. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of CVS among university employees and graduate students in their occupational environment in Iran. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in the Rehabilitation School of Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran. The study population (n=154) included all university employees and graduate students who spend at least one hour of computer work per day in their workplace. The participants completed a validated self-administered questionnaire. A descriptive analysis was performed and the prevalence of CVS was calculated. The correlations between variables were assessed using the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients and non-parametrical tests were used to evaluate the association between CVS and predictor variables, as well as differences between subgroups. Results: The Mean±SD age of the sample was 37.7±11.0 years, 64.3% were women, 57.8% were employee, 56.5% have higher education and the Mean±SD of computer usage time was 5.08±2.2. The total prevalence of CVS was 48.7% and the most frequent symptoms were eye redness (62.3%) and burning (56.5%). A significant positive correlation was found between the number of hours working with a computer and the total score of CVS (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.248, P=0.02). Moreover, the total score of CVS significantly differed between participants who use six or more hours the computer and those who spend less than six hours (Mann-Whitney U test: P=0.007). Conclusion: This is the first investigation using a validated questionnaire to estimate the prevalence of CVS among computer users in the occupational environment, in Iran. The results show a relatively high prevalence of CVS these populations. The most affected are those who use the computer for a longer duration.

Latin American immigrants make up 49% of the total immigrant population in Spain, yet little is known about their eye health. The aim of this study is to determine if there are differences in self-perceived eye health, access to eye care specialists, and use of lenses between a sample of Latin American immigrant workers from Colombia and Ecuador, and native-born workers in Spain. We used data from the PELFI cohort (Project for Longitudinal Studies of Immigrant Families). The sample consisted of 179 immigrant workers born in Colombia or Ecuador, and 83 Spanish-born workers. The outcome variables were self-perceived eye health, access to eye specialists, and use of lenses. A descriptive analysis of the sample was carried out, and the prevalence of the three outcome variables in immigrants and natives was calculated and adjusted for explanatory variables. Random effects logistic regression models examined eye health outcomes by workers’ country of birth. Immigrants are less likely to report poor self-perceived eye health than native-born (ORc 0.46; CI 95%, 0.22–0.96). Furthermore, they have less access to specialists (ORc 2.61; CI 95%, 1.32–5.15) and a higher probability of needing lenses but not having them (ORc 14.14; CI 95%, 1.77–112.69). This latter variable remained statistically significant after adjusting for covariates (ORa 34.05; CI 95%, 1.59–729.04). Latin American immigrants may not value the use of lenses, despite eye care specialists indicating that they need them. Eye health education is required to recognize the importance of using lenses according to their visual needs.