UNASSIGNED: To determine the factors associated with eyestrain in esports athletes in Bangkok compared with controls.
UNASSIGNED: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted between April and June 2023, involving 160 male participants (aged 20-35 years) who used digital devices, consisting of esports athletes and a control group. Data were collected using a general information questionnaire, Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q), and Depression anxiety stress scale-21 (DASS-21). Ophthalmic instruments were used for the eye examinations by an optometrist.
UNASSIGNED: Seventy-six esports athletes showed significantly lower visual performance than controls in logMAR visual acuity (p < 0.020), phoria (p < 0.001), negative fusional vergence (blur, break, and recovery) (p < 0.012, p < 0.004 and p < 0.039), positive fusional vergence (blur, break, and recovery) (p < 0.005, p < 0.001 and p < 0.005), monocular estimation method (p < 0.001), monocular and binocular accommodative facility (p < 0.001), and vergence facility (p < 0.001). A study on risk factors for CVS found that esports athletes were significantly more likely to have CVS (p < 0.001). Work environments with high-intensity lighting significantly increase the risk of CVS compared to low-intensity lighting (p < 0.001). The use of a digital device for >4 h/day, having a history of alcohol consumption, and stress significantly increased the risk of CVS (p < 0.001, p < 0.023, p < 0.048).
UNASSIGNED: This study found that esports athletes experienced vision health problems, indicating the need to prevent eyestrain caused by the use of digital devices.

Use of digital devices have become ubiquitous in healthcare and can create professionalism issues. This study presents opinions of faculty, residents, and medical students to inform policy on the appropriate use of digital devices in the patient care setting.
A survey was administered from September 2018 to October 2018 to faculty and residents within the general surgery department at a large academic medical center and all fourth-year medical students at an affiliated university. The survey included direct statements and case-based scenarios on similar themes to triangulate responses.
There were 114 participants in the survey-50 faculty, 26 residents, and 38 medical students. Digital device utilization was equivalent among all groups, and all participants use a smartphone. Digital devices were most frequently used during rounds and clinical conferences. Overall, digital device use was found more appropriate when seen in the case-based format rather than as a direct statement. Furthermore, use of these devices was seen as most appropriate when the provider explained its use or left the room to use the device.
Digital devices are used by faculty and trainees at similar rates for parallel purposes, and the benefits for patient-related care are evident. However, the use of digital devices in the presence of patients should be minimized and always preceded by an explanation. These findings can inform institutional policy when creating guidelines on the professional use of these devices in the patient care setting.