Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Headache and musculoskeletal pain in school children are associated with uncorrected vision problems and need for glasses: a case–control study

Abstract

Musculoskeletal pain and headache are leading causes of years lived with disability, and an escalating problem in school children. Children spend increasingly more time reading and using digital screens, and increased near tasks intensify the workload on the precise coordination of the visual and head-stabilizing systems. Even minor vision problems can provoke headache and neck- and shoulder (pericranial) pain. This study investigated the association between headaches, pericranial tenderness, vision problems, and the need for glasses in children. An eye and physical examination was performed in twenty 10–15 year old children presenting to the school health nurse with headache and pericranial pain (pain group), and twenty age-and-gender matched classmates (control group). The results showed that twice as many children in the pain group had uncorrected vision and needed glasses. Most children were hyperopic, and glasses were recommended mainly for near work. Headache and pericranial tenderness were significantly correlated to reduced binocular vision, reduced distance vision, and the need for new glasses. That uncorrected vision problems are related to upper body musculoskeletal symptoms and headache, indicate that all children with these symptoms should have a full eye examination to promote health and academic performance.

Introduction

Headaches and neck and back pain are leading causes of years lived with disability globally, and the prevalence is gradually increasing from school age to early adulthood1,2,3,4,5. Further, the overall headache prevalence is increasing in children3,6, and research is needed to elucidate risk factors. One proposed risk factor is increased near work activities, and children spend increasingly more time performing near tasks, particularly using digital screens, both at school and in their spare time7,8,9. Near work (reading, screen use) requires precise coordination between the head-stabilizing muscles and the visual system. Vision problems have been identified as another risk factor for development of headaches and neck and back pain, inducing non-ergonomic static postures such as protruding head or asymmetrical neck postures10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. Uncorrected vision problems (and need for glasses) substantially increase the load on the visual system and head-stabilizing muscles, provoking eyestrain, headache, and neck and back pain10,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28. Even minor vision problems such as small refractive errors or reduced accommodation can cause these symptoms, as well as additional difficulty concentrating and poor coordination. These vision problems also challenge the ability to maintain good vision over time, and this may lead to unnecessary difficulties at school, lower academic performance, and risk for chronic pain development17,29,30. As such, good vision can be seen as an important health promoting factor and vision problems should be identified and corrected.

Headache frequency in children and adolescents seems to increase with the transition to adolescence (girls) and in relation to psychosocial stress and obesity31,32. Tension-type headache is the most prevalent headache in the general population and has a lifetime prevalence between 30 and 78% and a high socioeconomic impact25,33. The 1-year prevalence of headaches in children and adolescents has been shown to be 88%, and the overall prevalence of tension-type headache 58%. In a study published in 2015 including 493 Norwegian adolescents aged 12–18 years, the participants lost on average 9 days of activity per year because of headaches, significantly interfering with their daily activities and constituting a major health problem34,35.

Headaches and spinal pain are associated36. Knowledge regarding risk factors and interventions for musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents is limited. Recent studies indicate associations between spinal pain and screen time, bad ergonomics, and socioeconomic and psychosocial factors, together with a higher pain prevalence in girls4,5,37,38,39,40,41. Headache and neck and back pain are personal burdens that reduce the quality of life, and identifying easily applicable and cost-effective interventions is important42. The aetiology is multifactorial, and treatments include medication, physical treatment, lifestyle modifications and psychological and cognitive-behavioural therapy32,43. Non-pharmacological treatments often involve extensive programs requiring high motivation42.

Treatment of uncorrected vision problems have received less attention in headache and neck and back pain management. Indications in the literature are that correcting vision problems (glasses/contact lenses) can treat headaches in children and adults44,45. Further, in Nordic school children, as many as 40% need glasses to obtain satisfactory vision during near tasks (book/tablet/computer) or far tasks (blackboard)30,46,47,48.

The purpose of this study was to describe possible associations between headache and neck, shoulder, and upper back pain and uncorrected vision, and elucidate risk factors in primary- and secondary-school children.

Methods

Subjects

The children in this study were recruited from Saltvern school (first to 10th grade), Bodø, Norway, during the period March to June 2017. Children who contacted the health nurses with unspecific pain in the neck/shoulders/upper back and/or headache and referred to a physiotherapist examination, were consecutively recruited to the pain group (n = 20). Of these 20 children, 11 (55%) reported neck, shoulder and/or upper back pain, 5 (25%) reported neck and/or upper back pain in combination with headache, and 4 (20%) reported headache. The mean age ± SD of the pain group was 11.7 ± 1.3 years (range 10–15 years, 11 girls and 9 boys). The control group was recruited from children who had not been in contact with the health nurse at Saltvern school. The control group was stratified regarding age and gender to match the pain group, with a mean ± SD age of 11.6 ± 1.4 years (range 10–13 years, 12 girls and 8 boys). In Norway, all schools are required to have an on-site health nurse service for all pupils49. At Saltvern school the health nurses are available each day between 8 and 15.30 h for scheduled and drop-in appointments.

Exclusion criteria for all participants were the following: Diagnosed or treated for headaches (including migraine) and neck/shoulder/back pain; diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders or systemic disease affecting eyes and the musculoskeletal system; previous injuries in head/neck/shoulders/back/eyes; daily use of medication affecting pain, blood circulation, vision and eyestrain; diagnosed and medicated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD); diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder; cognitive impairment; diagnosed dyslexia; impaired vision (decimal visual acuity < 0.3; LogMAR > 0.5), and non-fluent in Norwegian. Seven children in both groups had seasonal or perennial allergy. One child in the pain group and four children in the control group used glasses and/or contact lenses. In the control group, one child had classic Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS)50, and one had asthma.

All participants and parents received verbal and written information about the study, and written informed consent was obtained from all children and parents. The study protocol was approved by the Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (2017/108) and followed the Declaration of Helsinki.

Physical examination

A targeted examination procedure was developed for the purpose of this study based on validated tests51,52,53. The following variables were included: sitting posture (protruding head, asymmetrical neck), range of motion of the neck (rotation, lateral flexion, flexion; normal/decreased), range of motion of the shoulders (rotation, flexion; normal/decreased) and palpation of myofascial trigger points in musculature (breast, upper shoulders, interscapular; tender/not tender). All children were examined by one experienced physiotherapist who was blinded to group allocation.

Eye examination

A comprehensive eye examination was performed according to international clinical guidelines54,55 by an experienced authorised optometrist (RA). All participants were examined in the same room with an ambient illumination of approximately 500 lx. The structured, age-appropriate patient history interview54,55 included vision problems during near and distance work (with and without current glasses/contact lenses), ocular and general health, medication, and family ocular and general health. Symptoms of headache, double vision, blurred vision at near/distance, moving/jumping letters, and photophobia were registered in relation to frequency, severity and duration, location (distance/near, frontal/temporal/suboccipital), onset in relation to time of day (early morning/during school/evening), and type of activity. A symptom was defined as positive if occurring ≥ 1 time/week for more than 3 months during the last year, with a moderate intensity and duration. Headache was further defined as an episode of pressing or tightening quality lasting more than 30 min and having a unilateral or bilateral location.

The eye examination included habitual and best-corrected logMAR visual acuity (6 m and 40 cm), dominant eye (near/distance), refractive error with and without cycloplegia (1–2 drops Cyclopentolate Minims 1%), cover test (near/distance), accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio (Howell phoria card), near point of convergence (NPC), monocular and binocular accommodation amplitude (AA) (RAF-rule)56, motility, confrontation visual field (Donders’ test), pupillary distance, colour vision, stereo acuity (TNO test), fundus examination, anterior chamber depth (Van Herick technique), intraocular pressures, vergence facility, and facility of accommodation (monocular/binocular). Additional binocular measurements were accommodative response (cross-cylinder card), near fusional reserves (positive/negative), accommodation reserves (positive/negative), and accommodation accuracy and lag (monocular estimate method (MEM) retinoscopy).

For analysis, spherical equivalent error (SER) was calculated in dioptres (D). Refractive errors were defined as myopia (SER ≤  − 0.50 D), emmetropia (− 0.50 D < SER <  + 0.50 D), mild hyperopia (≥ + 0.50 D, SER <  + 2.00 D), moderate to high hyperopia (SER ≥  + 2.00 D), astigmatism (≥ 0.75 DC) and anisometropia (difference between the eyes ≥ 1.00 D). Normal visual acuity was defined as best corrected VA ≤ 0.0 logMAR, orthophoria as 2 prism dioptres (pd.), exophoria to 1 pd. esophoria for distance, and 6 pd. exophoria to 0 pd. esophoria for near. Normal NPC was defined as ≤ 10 cm, AA as > 9 D, and AC/A ratio as 4:1 ± 2 pd. Normal values are in line with previous studies46,48,57,58. Glasses for uncorrected refractive errors were recommended when the child had (1) moderate to high hyperopia, (2) mild hyperopia and ≥ 2 positive symptoms, (3) myopia, (4) reduced binocular function and ≥ 2 positive symptoms, (5) best-corrected visual acuity improvement of − 0.1 logMAR or more, or a combination of these. In addition, children already wearing glasses were recommended new glasses if there was a change of ≥ 0.50 best corrected SER54,55. Children defined as emmetropic, with normal eye health and no symptoms, were not recommended glasses.

In addition, physical activity (including organized activities, weekdays/days off), digital screen use (mobile phone, tablet, computer during weekdays/days off) and associated symptoms were answered using a structured interview questionnaire. Pain in the eyes/head/neck/shoulders/upper back during screen use (Fig. 1) were scored using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale59. This scale uses faces to help children communicate about their pain. Each of the six faces (0, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 points) represents a different facial expression of pain. Children were encouraged to describe their history and symptoms during the eye examination and the interview questionnaire by themselves. Parents/guardians were asked to elaborate and add information when necessary. To ensure maintained attention and avoid tiredness, the questionnaire was performed at a second visit within two weeks from the eye examination.

Figure 1
figure1

Localization of neck, shoulders and upper back. Reproduced by permission92.

Efforts and attention were paid to avoid investigator bias during the eye examination regarding group allocation. However, due to the nature of an eye examination, and especially, history taking, it was not possible to ensure that the optometrist was completely blinded. As history taking and recording of symptoms were structured, and most vision tests are objective, the effect of potential bias were considered low, in line with previous findings60. The optometrist was not aware of the results from the physiotherapist at the time of the eye examination.

Statistics

Raw data were assessed for normality using Q-Q plots and the Shapiro–Wilk test. Differences between the pain and control groups were tested by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent-samples t-tests. A paired sample t-test was used for comparing dependent variables. Chi-square independence tests were used to evaluate associations between categorical variables. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to investigate associations between continuous variables. Point-biserial correlations were run to determine the relationship between categorical and continuous variables. To protect from Type I errors, Bonferroni corrections were conducted for multiple comparisons when suitable61. Analysis and distributions using refractive errors included right eye only, as there were no significant differences between the right and left eyes (paired sample t-test, p > 0.05) for either group. A statistical difference was set at p < 0.05 (two-tailed). Statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 24, US).

Results

Physical examination

Trigger points and physical deviations were present in both groups (Table 1), and upper shoulder trigger points (pericranial tenderness) were the most common finding. The physical examination revealed that eighteen (90%) of the children in the pain group had upper shoulder trigger points, which was significantly more frequent compared to the 8 (40%) in the control group (χ2(1, n = 40) = 11.00, p = 0.001). There were no other significant differences between the groups.

Table 1 Frequency of trigger points and physical deviations.

Eye examination

All children had good ocular health and correctable vision. Table 2 shows that the average refractive error was mild hyperopia in both groups. Frequencies of refractive errors are shown in Table 3, and it can be seen that there was one child with myopia, one with anisometropia and two with astigmatism. The cycloplegic refraction, as expected, significantly increased hyperopia by approximately + 0.5D in both groups. There were no significant differences in mean refractive error between the groups (Table 2). Table 2 also shows that on average, the children had normal habitual and best corrected visual acuity (VA). In the pain group there was a significant improvement in best corrected VA in the right eye (n = 20, p = 0.023).

Table 2 Eye examination—average visual acuity, refractive error and binocular status.
Table 3 Sample frequencies of reported symptoms, pain scores, vision results, and management.

The frequencies of habitual and best corrected VA are shown in Table 3, and with the best corrected VA there was one child in the pain group that did not achieve normal vision due to known anisometropia.

Table 2 also shows that the pain group had a significantly lower accommodative convergence/accommodation ratio (AC/A) compared to the control group (one-way ANOVA (F(1,37) = 4.991, p = 0.032); independent-samples t-test (t(37) =  − 2.234, p = 0.032)). No other significant differences in mean values regarding binocular measurements were found between the groups. Although the binocular vision results on average were within normal limits in both groups (Table 2), Table 3 shows that two children in the pain group had reduced near point of convergence (NPC), 6 and 3 children had reduced binocular amplitude of accommodation (AA), and 12 and 7 had reduced AC/A in the pain and control group, respectively.

Table 3 shows the symptoms from the eye examination and the screen-use questionnaire. The results from the eye examinations showed that headache was significantly more frequent in the pain group (16/80%) compared to the in the control group (8/40%) (χ2(1, n = 40) = 6.67, p = 0.01). The location was mostly frontal or temporal, and onset was during school hours, but there was no significant difference related to location or onset. The eye examination revealed a significant increase of seven more children with headache in the pain group compared to the time of recruitment (χ2(1, n = 20) = 4.09, p = 0.043). Significantly more children in the pain group reported two or more symptoms during the eye examination compared to in the control group (χ2(1, n = 40) = 6.47, p = 0.01). Table 3 also shows that headache during screen use was more frequent in the pain group (χ2(1, n = 40) = 6.47, p = 0.01), and with a higher intensity score (one-way ANOVA (F(1,38) = 8.987, p = 0.005); independent-samples t-test (t(38) = 2.998, p = 0.005). The most frequent symptom during screen use was neck pain, present in approximately two-thirds of children in both groups. The screen-use questionnaire revealed that all the children regularly used a smart phone. In the pain group, 75% and 80% additionally used a tablet or a computer, respectively, compared to 90% and 75% in the control group. There were no significant differences regarding screen time or physical activity between the groups, and no significant correlations between reported symptoms and screen use. The total screen time was 3.4 ± 1.1 h (mean ± SD, range 1.0 to 5.5) during weekdays, which was significantly lower compared to 4.5 ± 1.7 h (mean ± SD, range 2.0 to 8.0) on days off (p < 0.000). The children were engaged in physical activity 3.0 ± 0.9 h (mean ± SD, range 1.5 to 5.5) on weekdays and 3.0 ± 1.2 h (mean ± SD, range 1.0 to 7.0) during days off.

Table 3 shows that new glasses were the main recommended treatment for all children. Significantly more children in the pain group were recommended new glasses (15), compared to the control group (8) (χ2(1, n = 40) = 5.01, p = 0.025). It can be seen that most children were recommended glasses for mild hyperopia, reduced AC/A, and ≥ 2 symptoms. New glasses was significantly associated with reduced binocular vision and habitual VA (AC/A ratio; r =  − 0.418, n = 39, p = 0.008/VA; r = 0.336, n = 40, p = 0.037). These children were explained to use their glasses for near work, to alleviate and prevent symptoms, and facilitate reading, writing, and screen viewing. Three children had moderate to high hyperopia and were recommended glasses for continuous use. The one child with myopia was recommended glasses mainly for distance use. Three of the children in the control group who already wore glasses, were recommended a change in prescription due to increased hyperopia.

Associations between headache, trigger points and uncorrected vision

For all children, headache was significantly related to recommendation of new glasses (χ2(1, n = 40) = 11.53, p = 0.001). In addition, the presence and intensity of headache during screen use was significantly correlated with recommendation for new glasses (χ2(1, n = 40) = 5.51, p = 0.019; r = 0.366, n = 40, p = 0.020). The presence of both headache/headache during screen use and trigger points was also significantly associated with the need for new glasses (χ2(1, n = 40) = 5.01, p = 0.025/(χ2(1, n = 40) = 4.97, p = 0.026). Further, symptoms were related to reduced binocular vision and VA. Reduced binocular AA was associated with headache (r = – − 0.492, n = 40, p = 0.001) and combined headache and trigger points (borderline significant; r =  − 0.311, n = 40, p = 0.054). Increased presence of upper shoulder trigger points was significantly correlated with reduced habitual VA (RE: r = 0.341, n = 40, p = 0.031; LE: r = 0.356, n = 40, p = 0.024).

Overall, headache recorded during eye examination was associated with upper shoulder trigger points (χ2(1, n = 40) = 8.86, p = 0.003). The number of children with both headache and trigger points were significantly higher in the pain group (15/75%) compared to the control group (5/25%) (χ2(1, n = 40) = 10.00, p = 0.002). Also, headache during screen use was significantly related to the presence of trigger points in the pain group (χ2(1, n = 20) = 4.13, p = 0.042; r = 0.454, n = 20, p = 0.044). Significantly more children in the pain group (13/65%) had both headache during screen use and trigger points, compared to in the control group (2/10%) (χ2(1, n = 40) = 12.91, p = 0.000).

Discussion

The results of this study showed that school children presenting with headaches and musculoskeletal pain also had uncorrected vision problems and needed glasses. The prescribed glasses were mainly for near work, such as reading/writing and screen use. Headache and trigger points were correlated to reduced binocular vision, lower VA and the need for new glasses. This suggests a relationship in children between upper body musculoskeletal symptoms, headache and the need for an optical correction. More children in the pain group were recommended new glasses due to hyperopia and reduced binocular vision compared to the control group. This is in line with a recent study investigating 7 to 15 year old children with uncorrected vision problems, where glasses were the main recommended treatment due to headaches, hyperopia, near vision problems, and reduced distance vision48. Only a few previous studies have examined headaches in relation to reduced vision, and the results indicate a relation between headaches and refractive errors44,45,48,62,63,64,65. However, only two of the studies used cycloplegic eye drops as recommended for evaluating refractive errors in children and young adults66,67, as such, headache in relation to mild hyperopia might have been ignored. Further, uncorrected vision also includes reduced visual functions, such as anomalies in visual acuity and binocular vision. Refractive error is the only risk factor mentioned in the international guidelines on classification of headaches33. Both reduced visual acuity and binocular vision should also be considered risk factors for headache and pericranial pain, as they pose an increased load on the visual system and head-stabilizing muscles, especially during near work10,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,68, in agreement with the present study.

More than twice as many children in the pain group (75%) had combined headaches and upper shoulder trigger points compared to the control group (25%), and headache was significantly associated with upper shoulder trigger points. Associations between headache and pericranial tenderness/trigger points in the neck and shoulder musculature have previously been shown in adults69,70,71,72. In children, knowledge of this association is limited, but it has been reported that approximately 20% of children with chronic tension-type headache also had pericranial trigger points73,74, which is lower than in this study. One reason for this difference could be that our study sample is older, and the presence of trigger points have been shown to increase with age75. Another reason could be type of headache. The eye examination in this study was performed according to international clinical guidelines54,55, however, the symptom registration was not detailed enough to be able to completely diagnose type of headache according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders33. The reported headaches were significantly associated with upper shoulder trigger points and had no significant correlations with reported photophobia. This may possibly point towards the definition of frequent episodic tension-type headache associated with pericranial tenderness (IHS, ICHD-3, 2.2.1)33. Increased pericranial tenderness is the most significant abnormal finding in patients with any type of tension-type headache, and the underlying pathophysiology is described as peripheral nociception from percranial and cervical musculature and central sensitization and increased excitability of the CNS33,72.

This study shows that headache is a complex symptom to understand, both for the individual and for health personnel, and that headache is often combined with both trigger points and neck and shoulder pain, in line with guidelines32. That more children in the pain group reported headaches to the optometrist than to the health nurse is an example of headache being difficult to understand. One explanation for this is that headache symptoms may be understood by the child as neck, shoulder or upper back pain. This is supported by findings that tension-type headache symptoms can extend into the neck and shoulders72. The eye and physical examination revealed that headaches and trigger points were also common in the control group, however, these children had not been in contact with health care personnel. Further, the results showed associations between symptoms and need for new glasses in 40% of the control group, in line with previous studies showing that 10–40% of school children need glasses to obtain satisfactory vision30,46,47,48. That the eye examination also revealed symptoms in the control group, supports that children often are unaware of symptoms of uncorrected vision problems. Particularly mild hyperopia, near vision problems and headaches may be difficult for a child to understand and complain about, and are often only identified by a thorough eye examination, when tested or asked specifically. It is a risk that the children found to have vision problems in this study, would have remained undiagnosed and uncorrected30,46,47,48. It is well known that children may have difficulties expressing and understanding symptoms of pain and discomfort, which our study also indicates76.

The children’s access to screens (mobile phone, tablet, computer) in this study was high, in accordance with national and international reports7,8,9,77,78. In both groups, eye pain, headache and neck/shoulder/upper back pain were all frequently reported screen-related symptoms, with neck pain reported in as many as two-thirds of the children. This is in line with previous literature, showing that digital screen-use may provoke headache, eyestrain, and upper body musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents41. The severity of symptoms have been shown to increase with static non-ergonomic postures, vision problems and prolonged viewing time16,20,21,26,27,28,41,79,80,81,82,83. However, no significant differences in screen use or physical activity were found between the groups in this study. This was not unlikely, as the two groups were recruited from the same school and were balanced with regard to age and gender. The findings of increased headache and musculoskeletal pain in the pain group may therefore be due to other factors, such as uncorrected vision problems. Uncorrected vision and the need for glasses substantially increase the load on the visual system and head-stabilizing muscles, provoking symptoms such as neck pain and headache. Therefore, for example, near work such as screen watching will induce more symptoms in children who need glasses compared to children with normal vision10,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28. Headaches and musculoskeletal symptoms in children have been shown to be associated with psychosocial stress and socioeconomic aspects31,39. However, these issues were not investigated in our study, and therefore the prevalence and possible effects on symptoms remain unknown.

Vision status

The majority of children in this study had good habitual vision, and all but one in the pain group, achieved best corrected visual acuity of 0.0 logMAR (1.0 decimal acuity). Cycloplegic refraction showed that the most prevalent refractive error was low hyperopia, followed by emmetropia. Only one child was myopic. This is in line with other Nordic studies in children and adolescents46,47,48,84. Although most children had good binocular vision, the children in the pain group had a significantly reduced AC/A compared to the control group. The AC/A is indicative of the visual focusing ability, and is necessary to keep a target in focus over time, and when changing focusing distances (e.g. from near, when reading, to distance when looking at the blackboard). Symptoms of reduced AC/A are headaches, blurred vision, eyestrain, intermittent double vision and learning difficulties47,85,86,87. Low AC/A may also indicate weakness in the eye’s ability to converge and convergence insufficiency (CI)88. CI is one of the most common binocular dysfunctions86. All children with suspected CI were recommended glasses for all types of near work58. In the pain group, there was a significant correlation between headaches, trigger points and reduced binocular AA. That reduced accommodation is related to headache and pericranial tenderness can be explained by increased activity in the trapezius muscle, as more eye and neck stabilization is necessary to compensate for different visual demands when focusing at different distances89. It is also possible that the correlation between symptoms and reduced binocular vision, is caused by a direct link between the ciliary muscle/accommodation and the neck- and shoulder area28. Although this study was not able to answer a causational relationship between uncorrected vision problems and symptoms of headache and pericranial tenderness, the presence of significant associations, particularly in the pain group, indicate that vision problems should be identified and corrected to promote health and academic quality of life.

Strengths and limitations

Even though the present study had a relatively small sample size, a strength is that the age-range is quite narrow and there is a gender balance in the sample, and thus the results may be representative for 10–15 year old school children. However, the results must be reproduced in larger, longitudinal studies to draw more solid conclusions. Another strength is that this study is one of few investigating and showing associations between symptoms of headaches, musculoskeletal complaints and vision problems in school children, supporting that uncorrected vision may be a risk factor. Due to the nature of an eye examination, and especially history taking, it was not possible to ensure that the optometrist was completely blinded. However, the history taking and recording of symptoms were structured, and most vision tests are objective, so the effect of potential bias were considered low in line with previous findings60. The physiotherapist was blinded to group allocation, and the optometrist was not aware of the results from the physiotherapist at the time of the eye examination. Future studies should also include psychosocial variables, such as stress and quality of life, known to be associated with the experience of pain.

Conclusions

School children presenting with headaches and musculoskeletal pain have uncorrected vision and an increased need for near work glasses (e.g. reading, writing, screen use). Most children were hyperopic, supporting findings from other Nordic studies. Together with the increasing amount of daily near work such as screen work, this study highlights and supports the importance of regular eye examinations to prevent unnecessary symptoms and difficulties7,8,9,48,90. Importantly, this study shows that many school children, parents and teachers are unaware of symptoms of vision problems that may influence academic performance and quality of life30,48. Symptoms of headaches and the need for glasses are difficult to reveal in school children, and awareness should be raised in parents, teachers and school health services, as solutions may be easily available and important for quality of life. At present, reduced vision as a risk factor for headaches and pericranial pain is almost absent and incompletely described in guidelines, presumably caused by the low volume of research and lack of high-quality evidence32,33,91. Our study has elucidated the role of optimizing vision with glasses in prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal symptoms and headache, and highlights the need for more research.

Data availability

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AA:

Amplitude of accommodation (D)

AC/A:

Accommodative convergence/accommodation ratio

BIN:

Binocular (both eyes)

D:

Diopter

LE:

Left eye

MEM:

Monocular estimate method retinoscopy

NPC:

Near point of convergence

NRA/PRA:

Negative/positive relative accommodation

RE:

Right eye

SER:

Spherical equivalent error

TNO:

TNO stereopsis

VA:

Visual acuity

VF:

Vergence facility

References

  1. 1.

    GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388, 1545–1602. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet 390, 1211–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 392, 1789–1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gustafsson, M. L., Laaksonen, C., Aromaa, M., Loyttyniemi, E. & Salantera, S. The prevalence of neck-shoulder pain, back pain and psychological symptoms in association with daytime sleepiness—A prospective follow-up study of school children aged 10 to 15. Scand. J. Pain 18, 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2017-0166 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Joergensen, A. C., Hestbaek, L., Andersen, P. K. & Nybo-Andersen, A. M. Epidemiology of spinal pain in children: A study within the Danish National Birth Cohort. Eur. J. Pediatr. 178, 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-019-03326-7 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jeong, Y. J., Lee, Y. T., Lee, I. G. & Han, J. Y. Primary headaches in children and adolescents—Experiences at a single headache center in Korea. BMC Neurol. 18, 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-018-1073-9 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Saunders, T. J. & Vallance, J. K. Screen time and health indicators among children and youth: Current evidence, limitations and future directions. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 15, 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0289-3 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Twenge, J. M. & Campbell, W. K. Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Prev. Med. Rep. 12, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Winther, A. et al. Leisure time computer use and adolescent bone health—Findings from the Tromso Study, Fit Futures: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 5, e006665. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006665 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Munshi, S., Varghese, A. & Dhar-Munshi, S. Computer vision syndrome—A common cause of unexplained visual symptoms in the modern era. Int. J. Clin. Pract. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12962 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Roll, S. C. et al. Prevention and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal disorders in oral health care professionals: A systematic review. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 150, 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2019.01.031 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hoe, V. C., Urquhart, D. M., Kelsall, H. L. & Sim, M. R. Ergonomic design and training for preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008570.pub2 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Jun, D., Zoe, M., Johnston, V. & O’Leary, S. Physical risk factors for developing non-specific neck pain in office workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 90, 373–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-017-1205-3 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mayer, J., Kraus, T. & Ochsmann, E. Longitudinal evidence for the association between work-related physical exposures and neck and/or shoulder complaints: A systematic review. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 85, 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-011-0701-0 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kim, R., Wiest, C., Clark, K., Cook, C. & Horn, M. Identifying risk factors for first-episode neck pain: A systematic review. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 33, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2017.11.007 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wirth, B., Potthoff, T., Rosser, S., Humphreys, B. K. & de Bruin, E. D. Physical risk factors for adolescent neck and mid back pain: A systematic review. Chiropr. Man Therap. 26, 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-018-0206-y (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Keown, G. A. & Tuchin, P. A. Workplace factors associated with neck pain experienced by computer users: A systematic review. J. Manipulat. Physiol. Ther. 41, 508–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2018.01.005 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ye, S., Jing, Q., Wei, C. & Lu, J. Risk factors of non-specific neck pain and low back pain in computer-using office workers in China: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 7, e014914. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014914 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Mingels, S., Dankaerts, W. & Granitzer, M. Is there support for the paradigm “spinal posture as a trigger for episodic headache”? A comprehensive review. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 23, 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-019-0756-2 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    de Vries, J. et al. Cervico-ocular reflex is increased in people with nonspecific neck pain. Phys. Ther. 96, 1190–1195. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20150211 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Johnston, J. L., Daye, P. M. & Thomson, G. T. Inaccurate saccades and enhanced vestibulo-ocular reflex suppression during combined eye-head movements in patients with chronic neck pain: Possible implications for cervical vertigo. Front. Neurol. 8, 23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00023 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Domkin, D., Forsman, M. & Richter, H. O. Effect of ciliary-muscle contraction force on trapezius muscle activity during computer mouse work. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 119, 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-018-4031-8 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Sanchez-Gonzalez, M. C. et al. Is it possible to relate accommodative visual dysfunctions to neck pain?. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1421, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13614 (2018).

    ADS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Zetterberg, C., Forsman, M. & Richter, H. O. Neck/shoulder discomfort due to visually demanding experimental near work is influenced by previous neck pain, task duration, astigmatism, internal eye discomfort and accommodation. PLoS ONE 12, e0182439. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182439 (2017).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Taylor, F. R. Tension-Type Headache in Adults: Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, and Diagnosis (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/tension-type-headache-in-adults-pathophysiology-clinical-features-and-diagnosis?search=Tension-type%20headache%20in%20adults:%20Pathophysiology,%20clinical%20features,%20and%20diagnosis&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~107&usage_type=default&display_rank=1.

  26. 26.

    Blehm, C., Vishnu, S., Khattak, A., Mitra, S. & Yee, R. W. Computer vision syndrome: A review. Surv. Ophthalmol. 50, 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.02.008 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Rosenfield, M. Computer vision syndrome: A review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic. Physiol. Opt. 31, 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00834.x (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sanchez-Gonzalez, M. C. et al. Visual system disorders and musculoskeletal neck complaints: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1457, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14224 (2019).

    ADS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bruce, A. et al. The effect of adherence to spectacle wear on early developing literacy: A longitudinal study based in a large multiethnic city, Bradford, UK. BMJ Open 8, e021277. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021277 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hopkins, S., Narayanasamy, S., Vincent, S. J., Sampson, G. P. & Wood, J. M. Do reduced visual acuity and refractive error affect classroom performance?. Clin. Exp. Optom. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12953 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Connelly, M. & Sekhon, S. Current perspectives on the development and treatment of chronic daily headache in children and adolescents. Pain Manage. 9, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.2217/pmt-2018-0057 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Bonthius, D. J. & Hershey, A. D. Headache in Children: Approach to Evaluation and General Management Strategies (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/headache-in-children-approach-to-evaluation-and-general-management-strategies.

  33. 33.

    Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The international classification of headache disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 38, 1–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102417738202 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Dao, J. M. & Qubty, W. Headache diagnosis in children and adolescents. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 22, 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-018-0675-7 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Krogh, A. B., Larsson, B. & Linde, M. Prevalence and disability of headache among Norwegian adolescents: A cross-sectional school-based study. Cephalalgia 35, 1181–1191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102415573512 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Vivekanantham, A. et al. The association between headache and low back pain: A systematic review. J. Headache Pain 20, 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-019-1031-y (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Szita, J. et al. Risk factors of non-specific spinal pain in childhood. Eur. Spine J. 27, 1119–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5516-1 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Ben Ayed, H. et al. Prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of neck, shoulders and low-back pain in secondary-school children. J. Res. Health Sci. 19, e00440 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Batley, S. et al. The association between psychological and social factors and spinal pain in adolescents. Eur. J. Pediatr. 178, 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-018-3291-y (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Sa, S. & Silva, A. G. Repositioning error, pressure pain threshold, catastrophizing and anxiety in adolescents with chronic idiopathic neck pain. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 30, 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2017.04.011 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Falkenberg, H. K., Johansen, T. R. & Thorud, H.-M. S. Headache, eyestrain, and musculoskeletal symptoms in relation to smartphone and tablet use in healthy adolescents. Scand. J. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.5384/sjovs.vol13i2p8-14 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Buchbinder, R., Maher, C. & Harris, I. A. Setting the research agenda for improving health care in musculoskeletal disorders. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 11, 597–605. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2015.81 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Lee, H. J., Lee, J. H., Cho, E. Y., Kim, S. M. & Yoon, S. Efficacy of psychological treatment for headache disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Headache Pain 20, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-019-0965-4 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Dotan, G., Stolovitch, C., Moisseiev, E., Cohen, S. & Kesler, A. Uncorrected amteropia among children hospitalized for headache evaluation: A clinical descriptive study. BMC Pediatr. 14, 241. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-14-241 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Gil-Gouveia, R. & Martins, I. P. Headaches associated with refractive errors: Myth or reality?. Headache 42, 256–262 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Hagen, L. A. et al. Prevalence and possible factors of myopia in Norwegian adolescents. Sci. Rep. 8, 13479. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31790-y (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Vikesdal, G. H., Mon-Williams, M. & Langaas, T. Optometric disorders in children and adults with dyslexia. Scand. J. Educ. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595715 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Falkenberg, H. K., Langaas, T. & Svarverud, E. Vision status of children aged 7–15 years referred from school vision screening in Norway during 2003–2013: A retrospective study. BMC Ophthalmol. 19, 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1178-y (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    The Norwegian Directorate of Health. Helsestasjons-og skolehelsetjenesten Nasjonal faglig retningslinje (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/helsestasjons-og-skolehelsetjenesten.

  50. 50.

    Malfait, F. et al. The 2017 international classification of the Ehlers-Danlos syndromes. Am. J. Med. Genet. C Semin. Med. Genet. 175, 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31552 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Isaac, Z. & Kelly, H. R. Evaluation of the Adult Patient with Neck Pain (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/evaluation-of-the-adult-patient-with-neck-pain?search=Evaluation%20of%20the%20adult%20patient%20with%20neck%20pain&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1.

  52. 52.

    Nigrovic, P. A. Evaluation of the Child with Back Pain (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/evaluation-of-the-child-with-back-pain?search=Evaluation%20of%20the%20child%20with%20back%20pain&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1.

  53. 53.

    Simons, S. M. & Dixon, J. B. Physical Examination of the Shoulder (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/physical-examination-of-the-shoulder?search=Physical%20examination%20of%20the%20shoulder&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1.

  54. 54.

    American Optometric Association. Comprehensive Pediatric Eye and Vision Examination (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://www.aoa.org/optometrists/tools-and-resources/clinical-care-publications/clinical-practice-guidelines?sso=y (2017).

  55. 55.

    College of Optometrists. The Routine Eye Examination (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://guidance.college-optometrists.org/guidance-contents/knowledge-skills-and-performance-domain/the-routine-eye-examination/.

  56. 56.

    Neely, J. C. The R.A.F. near-point rule. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 40, 636–637 (1956).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    O’Donoghue, L. et al. Sampling and measurement methods for a study of childhood refractive error in a UK population. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 94, 1150–1154. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.167965 (2010).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Scheiman, M. & Wick, B. Clinical Management of Binocular Vision: Heterophoric, Accommodative, and Eye Movement Disorders 4th edn. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Wong-Baker FACES Foundation. Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (2016).

  60. 60.

    Moustgaard, H. et al. Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: Meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 368, l6802. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6802 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Altman, D. G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research (Chapman & Hall, London, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Gunes, A. et al. Refractive errors in patients with migraine headache. Semin. Ophthalmol. 31, 492–494. https://doi.org/10.3109/08820538.2014.962177 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Akinci, A. et al. The correlation between headache and refractive errors. J. Am. Assoc. Pediatric Ophthalmol. Strabis. 12, 290–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2007.11.018 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Hendricks, T. J., de Brabander, J., van Der Horst, F. G., Hendrikse, F. & Knottnerus, J. A. Relationship between habitual refractive errors and headache complaints in schoolchildren. Optom. Vis. Sci. 84, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318031b649 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Hagen, L., Gilson, S. J. & Baraas, R. C. Vision status and reading test results in Norwegian adolescents. Scand. J. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.5384/sjovs.vol13i2p2-7 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Fotedar, R. et al. Necessity of cycloplegia for assessing refractive error in 12-year-old children: A population-based study. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 144, 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.041 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Yazdani, N., Sadeghi, R., Momeni-Moghaddam, H., Zarifmahmoudi, L. & Ehsaei, A. Comparison of cyclopentolate versus tropicamide cycloplegia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Optom. 11, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2017.09.001 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Wiener-Vacher, S. R. et al. Dizziness and convergence insufficiency in children: Screening and management. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 13, 25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2019.00025 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Abboud, J., Marchand, A. A., Sorra, K. & Descarreaux, M. Musculoskeletal physical outcome measures in individuals with tension-type headache: A scoping review. Cephalalgia 33, 1319–1336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102413492913 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Mingels, S. & Granitzer, M. Pericranial tenderness in females with episodic cervical headache vs asymptomatic controls: A cross-sectional study. J. Manipulat. Physiol. Ther. 41, 488–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2017.11.005 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Aaseth, K., Grande, R. B., Lundqvist, C. & Russell, M. B. Pericranial tenderness in chronic tension-type headache: The Akershus population-based study of chronic headache. J. Headache Pain 15, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1129-2377-15-58 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Jay, G. W. & Barkin, R. L. Primary headache disorders—Part 2: Tension-type headache and medication overuse headache. Dis. Month. 63, 342–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disamonth.2017.05.001 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Fernandez-de-las-Penas, C. et al. Referred pain from myofascial trigger points in head and neck-shoulder muscles reproduces head pain features in children with chronic tension type headache. J. Headache Pain 12, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10194-011-0316-6 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Alonso-Blanco, C. et al. Prevalence and anatomical localization of muscle referred pain from active trigger points in head and neck musculature in adults and children with chronic tension-type headache. Pain Med. 12, 1453–1463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01204.x (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Sacramento, L. S. et al. Presence of Latent myofascial trigger points and determination of pressure pain thresholds of the shoulder girdle in healthy children and young adults: A cross-sectional study. J. Manipulat. Physiol. Ther. 40, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2016.10.007 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Hauer, J. & Jones, B. L. Evaluation and Management of Pain in Children (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/evaluation-and-management-of-pain-in-children?search=pain%20children&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1#H27.

  77. 77.

    Norwegian Media Authority. Barn og medier 2018 (Children and media 2018) (2018).

  78. 78.

    Løvgren, M. & Svagård, V. Ungdata junior 2017–2018 Resultater fra en spørreundersøkelse blandt elever i alderen 10 til12 år. (Youth data 2017–2018. Survey results from pupils aged 10 to 12 years). NOVA-Rapport (2019).

  79. 79.

    Costigan, S. A., Barnett, L., Plotnikoff, R. C. & Lubans, D. R. The health indicators associated with screen-based sedentary behavior among adolescent girls: A systematic review. J. Adolesc. Health 52, 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.07.018 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Eitivipart, A. C., Viriyarojanakul, S. & Redhead, L. Musculoskeletal disorder and pain associated with smartphone use: A systematic review of biomechanical evidence. Hong Kong Physiother. J. 38, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1013702518300010 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Xie, Y., Szeto, G. & Dai, J. Prevalence and risk factors associated with musculoskeletal complaints among users of mobile handheld devices: A systematic review. Appl. Ergon. 59, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.020 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Kim, J. et al. Association between exposure to smartphones and ocular health in adolescents. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 23, 269–276. https://doi.org/10.3109/09286586.2015.1136652 (2016).

    MathSciNet  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Hakala, P. T. et al. Musculoskeletal symptoms and computer use among Finnish adolescents–pain intensity and inconvenience to everyday life: A cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 13, 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-13-41 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Sandfeld, L., Weihrauch, H., Tubaek, G. & Mortzos, P. Ophthalmological data on 4.5- to 7-year-old Danish children. Acta Ophthalmol. 96, 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13650 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Vilela, M. A., Pellanda, L. C., Fassa, A. G. & Castagno, V. D. Prevalence of asthenopia in children: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J. Pediatr. (Rio J.) 91, 320–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2014.10.008 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Garcia-Munoz, A., Carbonell-Bonete, S. & Cacho-Martinez, P. Symptomatology associated with accommodative and binocular vision anomalies. J. Optom. 7, 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2014.06.005 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Hussaindeen, J. R., Shah, P., Ramani, K. K. & Ramanujan, L. Efficacy of vision therapy in children with learning disability and associated binocular vision anomalies. J. Optom. 11, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2017.02.002 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Dusek, W. A., Pierscionek, B. K. & McClelland, J. F. An evaluation of clinical treatment of convergence insufficiency for children with reading difficulties. BMC Ophthalmol. 11, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-11-21 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Mork, R., Falkenberg, H. K., Fostervold, K. I. & Thorud, H.-M. S. Visual and psychological stress during computer work in healthy, young females-physiological responses. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 91, 811–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1324-5 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Hagen, L. A., Gilson, S. J., Akram, M. N. & Baraas, R. C. Emmetropia is maintained despite continued eye growth from 16 to 18 years of age. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 60, 4178–4186. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.19-27289 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Bajwa, Z. H., Wootton, J. & Wippold, F. J. Evaluation of Headache in Adults (Accessed 26 November 2020). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/evaluation-of-headache-in-adults#H522749806.

  92. 92.

    Mork, R. Effects of Direct Glare and Interaction Between the Visual System and the Musculoskeletal System During Computer Work. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to the health nurses at Saltvern school, Bodø, Norway, and the physiotherapists Borghild Viem and Cathrine Annie Heen Pettersen, Bodø municipality, Norway, for their involvement in the study and development of the procedure for physical examination.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

H.M.S.T., R.A. and H.K.F. designed the study and analysed and interpreted the data. R.A. collected the data. H.M.S.T. and H.K.F. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read, critically revised and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanne-Mari Schiøtz Thorud.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thorud, HM.S., Aurjord, R. & Falkenberg, H.K. Headache and musculoskeletal pain in school children are associated with uncorrected vision problems and need for glasses: a case–control study. Sci Rep 11, 2093 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81497-w

Download citation

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing