AIM:To investigate the current status and influencing factors of knowledge-attitude-practice in myopia prevention and control among children and adolescents in Ningbo City, thereby providing a scientific basis for formulating targeted prevention strategies.METHODS: Children and adolescents aged 6-12 years old were selected from the medical-school collaborative myopia prevention network in Ningbo City between August 2024 and May 2025 using stratified cluster sampling. Information on myopia prevention knowledge(15 items)and practice(9 items)was collected through questionnaire surveys. Logistic regression models were used to analyze factors influencing myopia occurrence in children and adolescents.RESULTS: A total of 664 children and adolescents aged 6-12 years were enrolled in this study. Participants were divided by age into three groups: 6-7 years old(n=221), 8-9 years old(n=221), and 10-12 years old(n=222). Of the 664 questionnaires distributed, 637 valid questionnaires were returned(201 from the 6-7 age group, 235 from the 8-9 age group, and 201 from the 10-12 age group), yielding an effective response rate of 95.9%. Based on myopia screening results, the non-myopic group comprised 203 participants(31.9%), including 100 males and 103 females, with a mean age of 8.82±1.98 years old. The myopic group comprised 434 participants(68.1%), including 213 males and 221 females, with a mean age of 9.10±1.95 years old. The myopia prevalence rates in the 6-7, 8-9, and 10-12 age groups were 37.8%(76/201), 71.9%(169/235), and 94.0%(189/201), respectively(P<0.001). Regarding the knowledge and practice of myopia prevention, the overall awareness rate in the non-myopic group(59.7%±9.7%)was significantly higher than that in the myopic group(48.7%±8.5%; P<0.001). Additionally, the non-myopic group scored higher on the key practice of “regular eye examinations”(4.27±0.96)compared to the myopic group(4.10±1.05; P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis indicated that age was the primary risk factor for myopia occurrence.CONCLUSION: Age is the dominant factor in the onset of myopia, and there is a phenomenon of “knowledge-practice gap”; the traditional health education model has limitations, and a precise prevention and control system based on developmental patterns should be established.

Humans ; Models, Molecular ; Repressor Proteins ; chemistry ; metabolism ; Retinoblastoma-Binding Protein 4 ; chemistry ; metabolism

Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance of HPV genotyping with cytology for detecting cervical precancer among women attending co-testing. Methods: A total of 2 883 females who participated in cervical cancer screening program were recruited from Erdos in 2016. All the participants were tested by cytology and HPV genotyping. In 2017, women with abnormal cytology results or HPV positive were followed up. Pathological cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ was the study end-point. Clinical performance indexes were calculated, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, referral rate and missed cases. Results: INNO-LiPA resulted in a detection rate of 18.87%(544/2 883) for the 14-type high risk HPV. HPV16 was the most common infectious genotype (4.06%), followed by HPV52 (3.61%), HPV51 (2.50%), HPV58 (1.98%), and HPV18 (1.56%). With more HPV genotypes added into the group, sensitivity increased and the specificity decreased. Addition of HPV16, 58, 33, 39, 52, 18, 31 for detection lead to the maximun value of area under the curve (AUC)=0.913 (95%CI: 0.882-0.944). Compared with traditional screening method by cytology, cotesting decreased the number of missed diagnosis. Meanwhile, the fifth method (co-testing: triage of women with HPV16/18+ , cytological minor abnormalities and HPV58, 33, 39, 52, 31+ or cytological high grade abnormalities) did not increase referral rate (8.99% vs. 8.71%, P=0.525), with five cases of missed diagnosis (sensitivity of 92.1% and specificity of 93.2%). Conclusions Co-testing with triage of women with HPV16/18+ , cytological minor abnormalities and HPV58, 33, 39, 52, 31+ or cytological high grade abnormalities would provide better clinical performance. In co-testing, triage of HPV16/18 was used in women with normal cytology; triage of HPV58, 33, 39, 52 and 31 was used in women with low-grade abnormal cytology; referral colposcopy was used in women with high-grade abnormal cytology, which would provide better clinical performance.