4.7 Article

Impact of the Pressure-Free Yutori Education Program on Myopia in Japan

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10184229

关键词

prevalence of myopia; degree of myopia; high-pressure education; pressure-free education; Yutori education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that after Japan implemented a low-pressure education policy, the correlation between ophthalmic indicators and high myopia significantly decreased, and the prevalence rate of high myopia also decreased significantly. Compared to the enforcement of high-pressure education, there were significant differences in ophthalmic indicators and the prevalence rate of high myopia under the two educational approaches.
This study aimed to investigate the influence of educational pressure on myopia. A less-intense school curriculum was introduced nationally in Japan beginning in 2012 based on a pressure-free education policy. In this retrospective observational study, a total of 1025 Japanese medical students of Asahikawa Medical University underwent measurements of the cycloplegic refractive error and axial length (AL), from 2011 to 2020. The spherical equivalent (SE) and AL were correlated significantly with the fiscal year of births (p = 0.004 and p = 0.034, respectively) only during enforcement of the system of high-pressure education. The SE and AL regression rates during the two educational approaches differed significantly (p = 0.004 and p = 0.037, respectively). The prevalence of high myopia was correlated significantly (p < 0.001) only during the system of high-pressure education. The regression of the prevalence rate of high myopia during the two education approaches differed significantly (p = 0.010). The progression rates of myopia and increased prevalence of high myopia were observed only during high-pressure education, suggesting that not only ophthalmologists but also educators and the government should work on together to control the progression of myopia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据