Study Blames Rise In Teens Who Need Glasses On Excessive Screen Time (studyfinds.org) 53
pgmrdlm shares a report from StudyFinds: So many people, especially young people and teenagers, spend a significant period of time each day staring at a screen of some kind, whether that be a computer, smartphone, tablet, or the regular old TV. Now, a new study is warning parents that all that screen time may be behind a stunning rise in children who need prescription glasses. According to the report released by United Kingdom-based eye care company Scrivens Opticians, the percentage of 13-16 year olds in the U.K. who need glasses has nearly doubled over the past seven years -- from 20% in 2012 to 35% in 2018. Two-thirds of those teens were diagnosed as being myopic, or short-sighted. Researchers theorize that this significant increase in eye problems among young people is likely linked to excessive time spent staring at screens, which can lead to eye strain, shortsightedness, and blurred vision. In fact, the study also found that the average 13-16 year old spends around 26 hours per week staring at a smartphone, playing video games, or watching TV.
Study Finds (Score:3, Funny)
Drinking beer makes you more attractive and fun!*
*according to recently released research by the brewers association.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drinking beer makes you more attractive and fun!*
*according to recently released research by the brewers association.
Not something I'd believe based on their words alone. We definitely need more research. I'm willing to volunteer for a study.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not getting any more attractive, no matter how much I drink.
Re: (Score:3)
But what financial incentive does an eye care company have to warn people about dangers that if ignored lead people to buy their products?
Sounds to me more like a dentist warns you that eating too much candy and not brushing your teeth will have you end up with cavities. And if those aren't taken care of sooner or later you'll be looking at a root canal with an expensive crown, or even dentures which are also expensive, or just accepting your new British smile [youtube.com].
Irrespective of whet
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case warning parents about it would result in less need for glasses and thus less business for the people commissioning the report.
It's hardly surprising anyway, we have known this for a while. Looking at screens for long periods affects development of the muscles that refocus the eyes. Even adults need to exercise them a little to prevent developing problems focusing on anything other than screen distance.
By the way, there is a very simple exercise you can do if you have an issue with this. Onc
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all.
What really happens:
- Parents can't limit screen time, that would mean they have to sacrifice some of their diminishing free time to entertain the kids instead
- Parents see article saying screen time leads to poor eyesight AND that it often goes undiagnosed
- Parents take kids for eye tests! *DING DING DING* We have a winner!
They even hung a bell on that cat towards the end of the article:
“Parents always have a long back to school check list, but getting your children’s eyes tested should be a priority,”
Hardly rocket science.
According to the report released by ... (Score:3, Insightful)
... United Kingdom-based eye care company ...
Am I great at forensics or what?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but what's the incentive for them to bring out this report?
Re: According to the report released by ... (Score:3)
Could this explain why kids that read books always wore glasses?
Two eyes is the new 4 eyes i guess.
Or.
Its just some bullshit marketing report.
Re: (Score:3)
Fairly sure having to read in near darkness due to parents demanding I sleep instead of read was a major contributor to my eyesight deteriorating through childhood.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been seeing more and more "reports" cited as studies in headlines recently.
You know what the difference between a study and a report is? One is supposedly peer-reviewed science and the other is a press release with claims from an advocacy group.
Guess which one this is?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a glasses company be warnings us we're getting too many glasses?
Re: (Score:1)
It gets their name out there for free and it induces parents to have their kids' eyes checked.
Re: (Score:3)
They article isn't about the increase need for glasses. It's about the causation of same.
Is it because teens are studying worms or grasshoppers? Staring at their nails?
Re: (Score:2)
Because their recommended solution is to...make getting your kids' eyes checked a priority during the run-up to a new school year?
Or it could just be better diagnosis (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not making this up, OK?
I come from a family of 8 kids and my dad worked his ass off in the oil patch.
We didn't have money for eye tests.
I could see fine.
At 19 I joined Uncle Sam's Yacht Club and in boot camp they told me, "You can't see fine."
Been wearing glasses ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
How do I put it, your country is shit..
I think that's a little harsh - they don't need glasses as much as everything in America is bigger - *everyone* knows that...
Re: (Score:2)
We're a shithole country.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Back when I was a kid, there was simply no way to test kids ability to see properly. At best, you'd get kids with glasses that mask one eye to force them to use the other one (don't ask me how that works, or if at all) when it was painfully obvious that there's something wrong with their eyes. But optical lenses to make reading easier was virtually unheard of unless you were SO blind that you wouldn't even find the board at school.
If anything, I blame glasses for needing more and stronger glasses over
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid my mom didn't get me glasses until the school sent home a letter because I couldn't read the board. Also wearing glasses isn't as much a stigma as it used to be if at all.
The same happened to me except it took more than a year for anybody to notice.
Hardly a surprise... (Score:1)
It's long been known that there's a connection between screen time and vision issues, particularly near-sightedness... and kids these days spend more time staring at small screens than software developers in the 80's did.
Re: (Score:3)
It may not be screen time as much as lack of sunlight:
https://www.livescience.com/57... [livescience.com]
Even in my day ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what they were referring to. Maybe you need hearing aids.
Because never in human evolution ... (Score:3)
... have teens spent hours looking at things close up.
In the old days ... (Score:2)
Back in the old days there was no such thing as "screen time". Computers were things that occupied huge rooms, cost millions of dollars, and had less computing power and memory than my current watch. I did however read books. A lot. All the time. Far more than a mere 26 hours a week.
I wonder if "excessive book time" is the reason that I developed myopia in my teens?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if "excessive book time" is the reason that I developed myopia in my teens?
It was for me. Like you I read a lot as a kid. Always had my nose in a book, even when walking down the street. Found out I was near sighted at 16 when I went to take my driver's test and was prescribed glasses. Optometrist said it was because I had trained the muscles in my eyes to focus on near objects with all the reading.
At 35 I had my eyes checked for the second time in my life. I wasn't reading nearly as much as I had as a child but due to my job, and hobbies, I was spending 12+ hours per day
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if "excessive book time" is the reason that I developed myopia in my teens?
I've always thought it contributed to mine, though I had a genetic predisposition so I was wearing glasses by third grade. But my prescription proceeded to get worse for the next 20 years, while I read an average of a book a day.
"Researchers theorize that ..." (Score:3, Informative)
"Researchers theorize that this significant increase in eye problems among young people is likely linked to excessive time spent staring at screens".
In other words they've done no actual research. The latest research (by scientists, not marketers) indicates that myopia is caused by a lack of exposure to natural (i.e. bright) light.
Re: (Score:2)
People I know in Singapore give their kid atropine drops for the eyes. Myopia rates are very high there, I thought 80% of kids when they reach 18.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Fixable (Score:2)
Not a study (Score:3)
Myopia isn't necessarily a bad thing (Score:4, Interesting)
If you read a lot (including computers), myopia isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Think of your vision as having a depth of field that decreases as you get older... the far end remains relatively constant, but the near end relentlessly moves further away. Someone with "normal" vision will lose their ability to focus on "near" objects at a fairly young age.
In contrast, someone who's myopic has so much latent "near" capacity, they might not even NOTICE a difference in their ability to focus on near text until they've lost most of their accommodation ability. For a few years, they might be able to mitigate their loss of accommodation by simply taking off their glasses to read. And even after they finally need at least mild magnification to read, they might be able to get away without wearing bifocals if they can tolerate slightly blurry distance vision.
"20/20 vision" is a statistical norm, not a holy ideal. Some people (athletes & sportsmen, in particular) value distance vision above all else, and can deal with needing glasses (or bifocals) to read something occasionally (because, well, books and reading are boring to them). In contrast, people who spend most of their time reading books and computer screens might not care if things that are more than 8-10 feet away are blurry (or might intentionally choose to LET them be blurry for the sake of not needing bifocals), as long as things that are 15-30" away are sharp and comfortable to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any problem reading books, but I need my glasses for a normal computer screen.
Too much of a good (bad) thing (Score:2)
Re: Too much of a good (bad) thing (Score:2)
Yeah, I probably should have been more clear about what I'd consider to be 'mild' myopia. I'd say, if you read a lot, somewhere between 0.75 and 2 diopters is probably optimal. At that point, near text will be readable without glasses, and medium-range (~4-10 feet) will be reasonably clear.
If you assume normal human optics have a range of ~12" to ~20 feet, I think each diopter cuts it in half, so 1 diopter would be ~6" to ~10 feet, 2 diopters would be ~3" to 5 feet, etc. Factor in mild presbyopia, and it co
worse ears or better detection (Score:2)
They said that about reading books too (Score:2)
It's not the reading per se, it's not looking enough at stuff far, far away.
Only the medium has changed (Score:2)
Back in the day, about 70 years ago, I started doing my eyes in using (gisp) the dreaded tool, the book. I read almost any book, especially technical books, I could get in my dainty little hands. By 6th grade I could not read the blackboard. Glasses helped. So if it isn't books and is computer screen I guess the only difference is that today 90+ percent of children are affected rather than maybe 10%.
{o.o}
Re:Only the medium has changed (Score:5, Informative)
The most interesting theory is that it is the lighting
https://www.nature.com/news/th... [nature.com]
Glasses and an IBM 14" CRT Monitor (1990s) (Score:2)
I needed glasses after using a 14" IBM CTR monitor for a few months back in the early 1990s (around 20 years old). The ones where you could hear and sometimes feel the tube powering up.
My glasses are for distance, at this time I take them off for reading.
My wife just got seamless trifocals, I didn't realize that was possible. They are almost like a super power.
And glasses really help protect your eyes, UV shielding and a physical barrier to impacts (they are mostly unbreakable at this point).
Well done! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now find out why people cause mass shootings, or is that too hard?
Video games cause mass shootings. Get rid of all video games, and you'll get rid of mass shootings, even if everyone keeps all the guns they have.
Maybe not just screens . . . (Score:2)
Maybe it's the fact that kids and teenagers spend less time outside looking at things in the the distance and spending all of their time inside or looking at something close. Sure, kids and teenagers have too much screen time, but they also don't get enough outside time. Probably the same could be said for just television or books or comic books or models if the kids never play sports or go outside.
Re: (Score:2)
I blame Inslee (Score:2)
He's popularized glasses, and in Nerd culture, girls with glasses are way cool too, so you can see where I'm going here ... (listener crashes into doorjamb) ... oh, maybe you can't see.
My bad.
Or they care about seeing now. (Score:1)
I wonder how much is just that we're looking for the issue more. I'll bet a lot of previous generations put up with fuzzy views that were "good enough" to look more attractive.
There is also the idea of being geeky as cute and desirable to some nowadays.