Objectives To evaluate athletes’ frequency of attendance at the eye clinic during the Olympic and Paralympic Games Rio 2016 and to correlate it to WHO core indicators on progress in ophthalmology care in a country.
Methods Frequencies of athletes’ attendance at the eye clinic were calculated for each country. Countries were classified according to the World Bank income levels in high, upper-middle, low-middle or low-income country. Data on ophthalmology care for each country were derived from the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness atlas. Data were analysed in view of WHO indicators for each country: visual impairment prevalence considering presenting visual acuity <6/18 to ≥3/60 in the better vision eye; number of ophthalmologists per million people and the cataract surgical rate per year, per million population.
Results The athletes’ overall frequency of attendance in the eye clinic was 6.47%. Frequencies of attendance for high, upper-middle, low-middle or low-income country were 1.97%, 9.66%, 16.54% and 22.43%, respectively. A positive correlation was observed between the athletes’ attendance frequency of a country and its visual impairment prevalence (r=0.2290, p=0.0017). A negative correlation was observed between the athletes’ attendance frequency of a country and its eye health workforce (r=−0.2152, p=0.0026).
Conclusion Countries with highest athletes’ frequencies of attendance were those that face barriers to eye care provision. These results reinforce the importance of the eye clinic service during the Olympic and Paralympic Games proving access to specialised care to athletes and members of delegation.
- public health
Data availability statement
Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Twitter @geoviews, @vagnerloduca
Contributors All the authors met the conditions stated at the ICMJErecommendations for authorship credit.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Map disclaimer The depiction of boundaries on this map does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ (or any member of its group) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. This map is provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.