Literature DB >> 20035244

Compliance with contact lens replacement in Canada and the United States.

Kathryn Dumbleton1, Doris Richter, Craig Woods, Lyndon Jones, Desmond Fonn.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess eye care practitioners (ECPs) recommendations for replacement frequency (RF) of silicone hydrogel (SH) and daily disposable (DD) lenses in Canada and the U.S. and to compare noncompliance (NC) with manufacturer recommended RF by the ECP and patient, and the reasons given for NC.
METHODS: Invitations to participate were sent by e-mail to ECPs in Canada and the U.S. Twenty patient surveys were sent to 420 ECPs, and 2232 eligible surveys were received from 216 ECPs (26% Canada, 74% U.S.). Questions related to patient demographics, lens type, wearing patterns, ECP instructions for RF, and actual patient RF. ECPs provided lens information and their recommendation for RF after the surveys were completed and sealed in envelopes. Responses were anonymous.
RESULTS: DD accounted for 18% (Canada) vs. 16% (U.S.) of wearers (p > 0.05); 35% (Canada) vs. 45% (U.S.) wore 2-week replacement SH (2WR; p = 0.011); and 47% (Canada) vs. 39% (U.S.) wore 1-month replacement SH (1MR) lenses (p = 0.025). Thirty-four percent (Canada) vs. 18% (U.S.) of ECPs recommended longer RFs than the manufacturer recommended RF for 2WR lens wearers (p < 0.001); 6% (Canada) vs. 4% (U.S.) for DD wearers; and 2% (Canada) vs. 1% (U.S.) for 1MR lens wearers. NC rates for actual RFs reported by patients were not different between countries (p > 0.05) and were lowest for DD (13% Canada, 12% U.S.), followed by 1MR (33% Canada, 28% U.S.). The highest NC rates were with 2WR (50% Canada, 52% U.S.). The most frequent reason for NC with 2WR and 1MR was "forgetting which day to replace lenses" (54% Canada, 53% U.S.) and in DD wearers "to save money" (56% Canada, 29% U.S., p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: 1MR lenses are more frequently prescribed in Canada. ECPs in Canada were NC with 2WR lenses more frequently than U.S. ECPs, but patient NC rates were the same in both countries for all lens types. ECP and patient NC rates were highest for 2WR lens wearers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20035244     DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181ca32dc

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optom Vis Sci        ISSN: 1040-5488            Impact factor:   1.973


  6 in total

1.  Non-compliance with contact lens wear and care practices: a comparative analysis.

Authors:  Danielle M Robertson; H Dwight Cavanagh
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  A study of contact lens compliance in a non-clinical setting.

Authors:  Erin M Rueff; Jessica Wolfe; Melissa D Bailey
Journal:  Cont Lens Anterior Eye       Date:  2019-03-16       Impact factor: 3.077

3.  Multipurpose soft contact lens care in Japan.

Authors:  Hiroshi Toshida; Yoshiaki Kadota; Chikako Suto; Toshihiko Ohta; Akira Murakami
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01-18

4.  Lifetime Corneal Edema Load Model.

Authors:  Russell Thomson; Rabia Mobeen; Arthur Ho; Desmond Fonn; Deborah F Sweeney
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.283

5.  Clinical Comparison of a Silicone Hydrogel and a Conventional Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lens.

Authors:  Jason Miller; Bradley Giedd; Lakshman N Subbaraman
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-10-29

6.  Wear Experience of a Water Surface Daily Disposable Contact Lens in Existing Silicone Hydrogel Planned Replacement Lens Wearers.

Authors:  Ryan Rutschilling; Jennifer Swingle Fogt
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2022-03-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.