Maciej Czepita, Krzysztof Safranow, Damian Czepita


Purpose: In this study we decided to answer the question of whether spending more time on reading and writing leads to higher prevalence of myopia.

Material and methods: A total of 70 people (140 eyes) – 17 men and 53 women aged 18–29 years (mean 22.5 ±2.8) were examined. A questionnaire concerning the amount of time spent each day on reading and writing, as well as ophthalmic examination involving: visual acuity, anterior segment and fundus examination, keratometry, auto‍‑refractometry and axial length of the eyeball measurement (using IOL Master) were carried out in all participants. The refractive errors were described as spherical equivalents (SE). Hyperopia was defined to be SE higher than +0.5 Dsph, and emmetropia to be higher than –0.5 and lower than +0.5 Dsph. Myopia was defined to be with a SE lower than –0.5 Dsph. High myopia was defined as SE lower than –8, medium myopia in the range between –8 and –4, and low myopia lower than –0.5 and higher than –4 Dsph. The obtained results were typed into an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed statistically using Statistica 10 software. P values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results: It was found that people with low myopia spent statistically more time on reading and writing than participants in the emmetropic group (5.8 ±2.4 vs 4.1 ±2.4 h/day, p = 0.003). A relationship between reading and writing and medium and high myopia and hyperopia was not observed (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Near visual work leads to higher prevalence of low myopia.


reading; writing; myopia

Full Text:



Czepita D.: Myopia – incidence, pathogenesis, management and new possibilities of treatment. Russ Ophthalmol J. 2014, 7, 960−101.

Czepita D., Żejmo M., Mojsa A.: Prevalence of myopia and hyperopia in a population of Polish schoolchildren. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007, 27, 60−65.

Morgan I.G., Ohno‑Matsui K., Saw S.M.: Myopia. Lancet. 2012, 379, 1739–1748.

Wojciechowski R.: Nature and nurture: the complex genetics of myopia and refractive error. Clin Genet. 2011, 79, 301–320.

Zadnik K., Mutti D.O.: Incidence and distribution of refractive anomalies. In: Borish’s clinical refraction. Ed. W.J. Benjamin. Butterworth‑Heinemann, St. Louis 2006, 35–55.

Czepita D., Mojsa A., Ustianowska M., Czepita M., Lachowicz E.: Reading, writing, working on a computer or watching television, and myopia. Klin Ocz. 2010, 112, 293−295.

Kinge B., Midelfart A., Jacobsen G., Rystad J.: The influence of near‑work on development of myopia among university students. A three‑year longitudinal study among engineering students in Norway. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000, 78, 26−29.

Mutti D.O., Mitchell G.L., Moeschberger M.L., Jones L.A. Zadnik K.: Parental myopia, near work, school achievement, and children’s refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002, 43, 3633−3640.

Saw S.M., Wu H.M., Seet B., Wong T.Y., Yap E., Chia K.S. et al.: Academic achievement, close up work parameters, and myopia in Singapore military conscripts. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001, 85, 855−860.

Wong L., Coggon D., Cruddas C.H., Hwang C.H.: Education, reading, and familial tendency as risk factors for myopia in Hong Kong fishermen. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993, 47, 50−53.

Jones L.A., Sinnott L.T., Mutti D.O., Mitchell G.L., Moeschberger M.L., Zadnik K.: Parental history of myopia, sports and outdoor activities, and future myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007, 48, 3524−3532.

Loman J., Quinn G.E., Kamoun L., Ying G.S., Maguire M.G., Hude‑ sman D. et al.: Darkness and near work. Myopia and its progression in third‑year law students. Ophthalmology. 2002, 109, 1032−1038.

Saw S.M., Shankar A., Tan S.B., Taylor H., Tan D.T.H., Stone R.A. et al.: A cohort study of incident myopia in Singaporean children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006, 47, 1839−1844.

Goss D.A.: Development of ametropias. In: Borish’s clinical refraction. Ed. W.J. Benjamin. Butterworth‑Heinemann, St. Louis 2006, 56–92.


Copyright (c) 2016 Maciej Czepita, Krzysztof Safranow, Damian Czepita

License URL: