Associations between Poor Vision, Vision-Related Behaviors and Mathematics Achievement in Chinese Students from the CNAEQ-PEH 2015

Abstract

Purpose: Poor vision is prevalent in school-aged students, especially in East Asia. This can not only cause irreversibly physical health impairments like glaucoma and cataracts, but also the loss of individual education and employment opportunities and deterioration of the quality of life. The present study aims to investigate the associations between poor vision, vision-related risk behaviors, and mathematics achievement in youth from China. Methods: The present study included a total of 106,192 Grade 4 students and 70,236 Grade 8 students from the China National Assessment of Educational Quality-Physical Education & Health 2015 (CNAEQ-PEH 2015). We conducted a standard logarithmic visual acuity scale for vision screening, a self-reported questionnaire for vision-related risk behavior and a standardized mathematics assessment for mathematics performance. Poor vision is defined as the visual acuity below 5.0 by using the standard logarithmic visual acuity chart. Linear regression was conducted. Results: The prevalence rate of poor vision in China was 37.1% in Grade 4 and 66.2% in Grade 8 in 2015. Students who had poor vision were more likely to have better mathematics achievement than those with normal vision. Reading in bed, insufficient sleep, and screen time during weekdays and weekends were associated with higher odds of poor vision. Conclusions: Poor vision was positively associated with mathematics academic achievements, while vision-related risk behaviors such as screen time, homework time and reading in bed were associated with a high prevalence of poor vision in compulsory education cycle students.

School-related sedentary behaviours and indicators of health and well-being among children and youth: a systematic review

“…Among cross-sectional study designs, more school-related sedentary behaviour was consistently null for cognitive indicators in 1/11 studies [ 90 ], unfavourable for cognitive indicators in 1/11 studies [ 91 ], favourable for cognitive indicators in 6/11 studies [ 62 , 63 , 68 , 92 – 94 ], and mixed for 3/11 studies [ 95 – 97 ]. Based on categories of school-related sedentary exposures, consistent null findings were observed for recess/PE [ 90 ] and sedentary time [ 68 ].…”

“…Based on categories of school-related sedentary exposures, consistent null findings were observed for recess/PE [ 90 ] and sedentary time [ 68 ]. As well, 5/9 studies reported more homework was favourable for cognitive indicators [ 62 , 63 , 92 – 94 ], while 1/9 studies reported more homework was unfavourable for cognitive indicators [ 91 ]. Overall, the quality of evidence was rated as very low due to a serious risk of bias.…”

“…of studies) Design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other Absolute effect Quality 47 (1) [ 98 ] Cross-Over Trial Very serious risk of bias a No serious risk of inconsistency No serious risk of indirectness Very serious risk of imprecision b None Standing desk : • 1/1 studies reported mixed findings c • 1 : More sedentary behaviour null and unfavourable for health [ 98 ] Very Low 178 (3) [ 54 , 55 , 85 ] Non-Randomised Intervention Very serious risk of bias d No serious risk of inconsistency No serious risk of indirectness No serious risk of imprecision None Standing desk : • 3/3 studies reported null findings [ 54 , 55 , 85 ] Very Low 1958 (1) [ 99 ] Longitudinal Serious risk of bias e No serious risk of inconsistency No serious risk of indirectness Serious risk of imprecision f Dose Response Homework : • 1/1 studies reported mixed findings • 1: Mixed findings included dose response relationships with unfavourable associations for ≥2 h of cram school attendance, and null associations for 0.5–1.9 h/day [ 99 ]. Very Low 472,293 (14) [ 63 , 94 , 99 – 110 ] <...>…”

“…For the cross-sectional studies, null findings were observed in 2/14 studies [ 63 , 100 ], more sedentary behaviour was unfavourable for risks/harms in 5/14 studies [ 94 , 101 – 104 ], and mixed in 7/14 studies [ 99 , 105 – 110 ]. More sedentary behaviour was consistently unfavourable for risks/harms when compared to recess/PE (indicating recess/PE was beneficial for preventing risks/harms) [ 103 ].…”

“…More screen time was also consistently unfavourable for risks/harms [ 104 ]. More homework was consistently null in 2/12 studies [ 63 , 100 ] and unfavourable for risks/harms in 3/12 studies [ 94 , 101 , 102 ]. Mixed findings for homework included dose-response relationships in 5/12 studies, with unfavourable results (e.g., “too much” homework associated with more shoulder pain), null results (e.g., no association between “not enough” homework and shoulder pain), and favourable results (e.g., 6–8 h/day of studying or sitting associated with less neck and shoulder pain [sample median: 8–10 h/day of studying or sitting]) [ 99 , 105 – 107 , 110 ].…”