James S Wolffsohn1, Antonio Calossi2, Pauline Cho3, Kate Gifford4, Lyndon Jones5, Deborah Jones5, Sarah Guthrie5, Ming Li6, Cesar Lipener7, Nicola S Logan8, Florence Malet9, Sofia C Peixoto-de-Matos10, José M González-Méijome10, Jason J Nichols11, Janis B Orr8, Jacinto Santodomingo-Rubido12, Tania Schaefer13, Nilesh Thite14, Eef van der Worp15, Elena Tarutta16, Elena Iomdina16, Bariah Mohd Ali17, César Villa-Collar18, Carmen Abesamis-Dichoso19, Connie Chen20, Heiko Pult21, Pascal Blaser22, Garzon Parra Sandra Johanna23, Fatima Iqbal24, Raul Ramos25, Guillermo Carrillo Orihuela26, Nikolay Boychev8. 1. School of Health & Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: j.s.w.wolffsohn@aston.ac.uk. 2. Department of Physics (Optics and Optometry), University of Florence, Italy. 3. School of Optometry, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 4. School of Optometry and Vision Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 5. Centre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 6. Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, China. 7. Contact Lens Section, Federal University of São Paulo/Paulista School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil. 8. School of Health & Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. 9. Point Vision Bordeaux, Ophthalmologic Center, Bordeaux, France. 10. Clinical and Experimental Optometry Research Lab (CEORLab) - Center of Physics, University of Minho, Portugal. 11. University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Optometry, Birmingham, AL, USA. 12. Global R&D, Menicon Company Limited, Nagoya, Japan. 13. Clinica Schaefer, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil. 14. International Association of Contact Lens Educators, Pune, India. 15. Eye-Contact-Lens Research & Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 16. Department of Refraction Pathology, Binocular Vision and Ophthalmoergonomics, Helmholtz National Medical Research Centre of Eye Diseases, Moscow, Russia. 17. Optometry and Vision Science Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia. 18. Department of Pharmacy, Biotechnology, Optics and Optometry, European University of Madrid, Villaviciosa de Odón, Spain. 19. Suite 906, Medical Plaza Makati, Amorsolo Corner Dela Rosa Sts, Makati 1229, Philippines. 20. Department of Optometry, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. 21. School of Health & Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK; Optometry & Vision Research, Weinheim, Germany; School of Biomedical & Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 22. Myopia.Care, SwissLens, Lausanne, Switzerland. 23. University Antonio Nariño, Optometry Research Group, Faculty of Optometry, Colombia. 24. School of Optometry, The University of Faisalabad, Pakistan. 25. Alcon Latin America, LACAR Vision Care, Barrio Loreto, Alcaldia Álvaro Obregón; Ciudad de México. 26. International Association of Contact Lens Educators, Lima, Peru.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A survey in 2015 identified a high level of eye care practitioner concern about myopia with a reported moderately high level of activity, but the vast majority still prescribed single vision interventions to young myopes. This research aimed to update these findings 4 years later. METHODS: A self-administrated, internet-based questionnaire was distributed in eight languages, through professional bodies to eye care practitioners globally. The questions examined: awareness of increasing myopia prevalence, perceived efficacy of available strategies and adoption levels of such strategies, and reasons for not adopting specific strategies. RESULTS: Of the 1336 respondents, concern was highest (9.0 ± 1.6; p < 0.001) in Asia and lowest (7.6 ± 2.2; p < 0.001) in Australasia. Practitioners from Asia also considered their clinical practice of myopia control to be the most active (7.7 ± 2.3; p < 0.001), the North American practitioners being the least active (6.3 ± 2.9; p < 0.001). Orthokeratology was perceived to be the most effective method of myopia control, followed by pharmaceutical approaches and approved myopia control soft contact lenses (p < 0.001). Although significant intra-regional differences existed, overall, most practitioners did not consider single-vision distance under-correction to be an effective strategy for attenuating myopia progression (79.6 %), but prescribed single vision spectacles or contact lenses as the primary mode of correction for myopic patients (63.6 ± 21.8 %). The main justifications for their reluctance to prescribe alternatives to single vision refractive corrections were increased cost (20.6 %) and inadequate information (17.6 %). CONCLUSIONS: While practitioner concern about myopia and the reported level of activity have increased over the last 4 years, the vast majority of eye care clinicians still prescribe single vision interventions to young myopes. With recent global consensus evidence-based guidelines having been published, it is hoped that this will inform the practice of myopia management in future.
PURPOSE: A survey in 2015 identified a high level of eye care practitioner concern about myopia with a reported moderately high level of activity, but the vast majority still prescribed single vision interventions to young myopes. This research aimed to update these findings 4 years later. METHODS: A self-administrated, internet-based questionnaire was distributed in eight languages, through professional bodies to eye care practitioners globally. The questions examined: awareness of increasing myopia prevalence, perceived efficacy of available strategies and adoption levels of such strategies, and reasons for not adopting specific strategies. RESULTS: Of the 1336 respondents, concern was highest (9.0 ± 1.6; p < 0.001) in Asia and lowest (7.6 ± 2.2; p < 0.001) in Australasia. Practitioners from Asia also considered their clinical practice of myopia control to be the most active (7.7 ± 2.3; p < 0.001), the North American practitioners being the least active (6.3 ± 2.9; p < 0.001). Orthokeratology was perceived to be the most effective method of myopia control, followed by pharmaceutical approaches and approved myopia control soft contact lenses (p < 0.001). Although significant intra-regional differences existed, overall, most practitioners did not consider single-vision distance under-correction to be an effective strategy for attenuating myopia progression (79.6 %), but prescribed single vision spectacles or contact lenses as the primary mode of correction for myopic patients (63.6 ± 21.8 %). The main justifications for their reluctance to prescribe alternatives to single vision refractive corrections were increased cost (20.6 %) and inadequate information (17.6 %). CONCLUSIONS: While practitioner concern about myopia and the reported level of activity have increased over the last 4 years, the vast majority of eye care clinicians still prescribe single vision interventions to young myopes. With recent global consensus evidence-based guidelines having been published, it is hoped that this will inform the practice of myopia management in future.
Authors: Amber Gaume Giannoni; Matt Robich; David A Berntsen; Lisa A Jones-Jordan; Donald O Mutti; Jill Myers; Kimberly Shaw; Maria K Walker; Jeffrey J Walline Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Monica Jong; Jost B Jonas; James S Wolffsohn; David A Berntsen; Pauline Cho; Danielle Clarkson-Townsend; Daniel I Flitcroft; Kate L Gifford; Annechien E G Haarman; Machelle T Pardue; Kathryn Richdale; Padmaja Sankaridurg; Milly S Tedja; Christine F Wildsoet; Joan E Bailey-Wilson; Jeremy A Guggenheim; Christopher J Hammond; Jaakko Kaprio; Stuart MacGregor; David A Mackey; Anthony M Musolf; Caroline C W Klaver; Virginie J M Verhoeven; Veronique Vitart; Earl L Smith Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Cristina Alvarez-Peregrina; Clara Martinez-Perez; Cesar Villa-Collar; Mariano González-Pérez; Ana González-Abad; Miguel Ángel Sánchez-Tena Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 3.390