Optometry & Visual Performance 142 Volume 14 | Issue 2 | June 2026 39.2% of respondents had previously heard of such programs, while 60.8% were unaware of them. Among those familiar with the programs, awareness was primarily gained through other sources (25.1%), followed by teachers (10.0%), students (9.3%), school administration (5.2%), and parents (4.5%). When evaluating the perceived importance and benefits of vision screening programs, most respondents (238 out of 291) believed that such programs are essential for students. This belief is supported by the potential benefits, with 49.5% of respondents identifying early detection of vision problems as the key advantage, 22.0% noting improved academic performance, and 14.4% mentioning an enhanced quality of life. A further 10.3% indicated that all listed benefits applied, while only minimal percentages chose various combinations of benefits or reported no benefit. These promising findings underscore the potential positive impact of SBVS programs. Finally, the study examined the challenges of implementing vision screening programs. The most commonly reported challenge was a lack of resources, cited by 41.9% of respondents, followed by a shortage of trained personnel (28.9%). Additionally, 11.0% cited insufficient parental support, and 3.1% cited cultural barriers. These challenges are real and significant, and the study aims to address them. Regarding strategies to improve participation, 35.1% of respondents recommended increasing awareness through targeted campaigns, while 25.1% emphasized the need for additional resources. Other suggestions included parental involvement and innovative screening tools, each noted by 11.0% of respondents. These findings highlight the multifaceted challenges and potential strategies for enhancing the delivery of SBVS programs in Egor LGA. Discussion Table 1 indicates that 79.7% of respondents reported no vision screening programs in the past year, while only 20.3% reported screenings. Among those, the frequency was low: only 1.7% conducted screenings more than twice annually. These findings reveal a significant gap in the implementation of the SBVS program in Egor LGA. This gap is wider than studies reported, which found that over 60% of basic schools in a Ghanaian municipality had some form of eye health intervention in place.16 Similarly, a study in Armenia found higher screening coverage due to a standardized national framework.10 The stark contrast suggests that Egor LGA lags in policy enforcement and operational readiness for SBVS. As shown in Table 2, the primary barriers cited for the absence of SBVS were lack of awareness, insufficient resources, and a perceived lack of need. These findings align with the rapid review study, which identified awareness, resource limitations, and stakeholder engagement as consistent global challenges in school-based eye care delivery.12 Likewise, a qualitative study in Ontario found that awareness among educators and parents significantly affected program implementation and follow-up care.13 Our results reinforce that awareness campaigns and educational outreach are critical starting points for intervention. Table 3 outlines the perceived benefits of SBVS. The most frequently cited were early detection of vision problems, improved academic performance, and enhanced quality of life. These findings are supported by multiple studies. For example, Toledo Response Frequency Percent Once a year 10 3.4 Twice a year 12 4.1 More than twice a year 5 1.7 Don’t know 32 11.0 N/A 232 79.7 Table 1. Frequency of Vision Screening Programmes Response Frequency Percent Lack of resources 69 23.7 Lack of awareness 98 33.7 No need for vision screening 58 19.9 A combination of the three above reasons 9 3.1 Lack of resources and awareness 6 2.1 Lack of awareness and no need for vision screening 1 0.3 No opinion 50 17.2 Table 2. Reasons for Absence of Vision Screening Table 3. Benefits of Vision Screening Programmes Response Frequency Percent Early detection of vision problems 144 49.5 Improved academic performance 64 22.0 Improved quality of life 42 14.4 All options 30 10.3 Options 2 & 3 1 0.3 Options 1 & 2 6 2.1 Options 1 & 3 2 0.7 No benefit 2 0.7
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEyMDQ0Nw==