PURPOSE: The aims were to determine the level of compliance of contact lens wearers, to identify which procedures have highest levels of non-compliance and to study the effectiveness of a compliance enhancement strategy on the level of compliance. METHODS: The level of compliance for each subject was evaluated with a self-administered questionnaire together with microbiological examination of their contact lenses, lens cases and lens care solutions. The effect of an intervention to improve the level of compliance was determined by a controlled trial. A regular self-review exercise on proper lens handling was given to the test group once every three months for 12 months. The levels of compliance and contamination of contact lenses and lens care accessories between test and control groups were compared at the end of the 12-month period to evaluate the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Sixty-five subjects who were experienced contact lens wearers were recruited and 60 completed the study. All showed some degree of non-compliance in the care of their contact lenses and lens accessories. Most (about 60 per cent) were non-compliant with at least six of a total of 15 lens care procedures. The most common non-compliant behaviour among contact lens wearers was associated with the care of the lens case. By the end of the study period, our compliance enhancement strategy did not appear to have had a significant effect on the behaviour of our subjects, except for improvement in the care of lens cases. Compliance for other procedures improved in both test and control groups. CONCLUSION: All subjects showed some degree of non-compliance and the spectrum of non-compliance was wide. The poorest levels of compliance were associated with care of the lens case, which was also the most frequently contaminated item. Our compliance enhancement strategy showed a significant difference in improvement in compliance between the intervention and control groups only in the care of lens cases.
PURPOSE: The aims were to determine the level of compliance of contact lens wearers, to identify which procedures have highest levels of non-compliance and to study the effectiveness of a compliance enhancement strategy on the level of compliance. METHODS: The level of compliance for each subject was evaluated with a self-administered questionnaire together with microbiological examination of their contact lenses, lens cases and lens care solutions. The effect of an intervention to improve the level of compliance was determined by a controlled trial. A regular self-review exercise on proper lens handling was given to the test group once every three months for 12 months. The levels of compliance and contamination of contact lenses and lens care accessories between test and control groups were compared at the end of the 12-month period to evaluate the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Sixty-five subjects who were experienced contact lens wearers were recruited and 60 completed the study. All showed some degree of non-compliance in the care of their contact lenses and lens accessories. Most (about 60 per cent) were non-compliant with at least six of a total of 15 lens care procedures. The most common non-compliant behaviour among contact lens wearers was associated with the care of the lens case. By the end of the study period, our compliance enhancement strategy did not appear to have had a significant effect on the behaviour of our subjects, except for improvement in the care of lens cases. Compliance for other procedures improved in both test and control groups. CONCLUSION: All subjects showed some degree of non-compliance and the spectrum of non-compliance was wide. The poorest levels of compliance were associated with care of the lens case, which was also the most frequently contaminated item. Our compliance enhancement strategy showed a significant difference in improvement in compliance between the intervention and control groups only in the care of lens cases.