OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the factors influencing eye care service utilisation and compliance with spectacles wear among school students.
METHODS: Mixed-methods study.
METHODS: 27 community schools from 6 districts of Bagmati province of Nepal.
METHODS: Adolescents with mild vision impairment who were screened at schools by their trained peers for visual acuity measurement and subsequently received subsidised spectacles for refractive error correction. For the quantitative study, 317 students from 21 schools completed the survey. For qualitative study, 62 students from 6 schools participated in 6 focus group discussions.
METHODS: Utilisation of eye care services and compliance with spectacles wear.
RESULTS: Among 317 students, 53.31% were aged 15-19, and 35.96% were male. More than half (52.68%, n=167) did not use eye health services. Among students who did not go, 51.50% reported eye health facilities being far away. Thematic analysis showed that distance, COVID-19 and awareness were influential in the utilisation of eye care. The multivariate analysis showed urban residents were likelier (adjusted OR (AOR) 4.347, 95% CI 2.399 to 7.877, p<0.001) to use eye care services. During an unannounced visit to schools after 3-4 months of spectacles distribution, 188 (59.31%) students were wearing spectacles. 20.16% of students not wearing spectacles reported they did not feel the need. Thematic analysis showed the influence of family and peers, affordability, aesthetic appearance, comfortability and symptomatic relief in spectacles compliance. The multivariate analysis showed that urban residents (AOR 2.552, 95% CI 1.469 to 4.433, p<0.001), older adolescents (AOR 1.758, 95% CI 1.086 to 2.848, p=0.022), mothers with paid jobs (AOR 2.440, 95% CI 1.162 to 5.125, p=0.018) and students visiting eye care centres (AOR 1.662, 95% CI 1.006 to 2.746, p=0.047) were more likely to be compliant with spectacles wear.
CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple barriers for students to use eye care services and stay compliant with spectacles wear. Eye health programmes should include eye health promotion and be accessible, affordable and equitable.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary 24-h movement behavior (24-HMB) guidelines provide recommendations on time spent on physical activity (PA), screen time (ST), and sleep (SL). There is evidence of physiological and psychological health benefits associated with meeting such guidelines. However, the prevalence of meeting 24-HMB guidelines among youth prescribed eyeglasses/contact lenses is less clear. The primary purpose of this cross-sectional analysis was to examine the prevalence of partially or fully meeting 24-HMB guidelines in U.S. youth prescribed eyeglasses/contact lenses, and variations in meeting the guidelines by demographic, health status, and environmental attributes.
METHODS: Data from the 2021 National Survey of Children\'s Health (NSCH) yielded a target subpopulation of 8523 youth aged 6-17 years (54.22 % girls) prescribed eyeglasses/contact lenses. The representative sample of US children and adolescents was used to estimate the prevalence of meeting 24-HMB guidelines, and a multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the odds of meeting 24-HMB guidelines by demographic, health status, and environmental variables.
RESULTS: Overall, only 6.57 % met all three 24-HMB guidelines, 23.74 % did not meet any of the three 24-HMB guidelines, and 3.57 %, 10.88 %, and 29.98 % met single guidelines for physical activity, screen time, or sleep duration, respectively, while 25.27 % met any of two 24-HMB guidelines. Female participants were less likely to meet PA + SL guidelines (OR = 0.57, 95 % CI [0.38, 0.56]) but more likely to meet ST + SL guidelines (OR = 1.52, 95 % CI [1.20, 1.91]). Hispanic participants were less likely to meet PA + ST (OR = 0.28, 95 % CI [0.14, 0.52]) guidelines and all three guidelines (OR = 0.41, 95 % CI [0.23, 0.71]) while participants identified as black (OR = 0.33, 95 % CI [0.21, 0.51]) were significantly less likely to meet ST + SL guidelines. With respect to health status, overweight status, repeated/chronic physical pain, and born premature, were detrimentally associated with meeting two or more 24-HMB guidelines. Living in neighborhoods with parks or playgrounds and neighborhood safety were positively linked to meeting the guidelines while living in neighborhoods with sidewalks or walking paths was negatively linked to meeting PA + ST guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: In U.S. youth prescribed eyeglasses/contact lenses the prevalence of meeting all three 24-HMB guidelines was low, especially the low prevalence observed in female participants, Hispanic and black participants, participants with overweight status, repeated/chronic pain, born premature, living in neighborhoods with sidewalks. Policy makers should take initiative to promote integrated guidelines among this special age group for health benefits.

More than twelve million US adults ages forty and older are affected by vision impairment, and projections suggest that this number will double by 2050. Although most vision impairment can be eliminated with corrective lenses, many adults lack access to routine eye care. In this study, we analyzed detailed state-by-state Medicaid policies for 2022 and documented variability in coverage for adult vision services. Most fee-for-service Medicaid programs covered routine eye exams, although many did not cover glasses (twenty states) or low vision aids (thirty-five states), and about two-thirds of states with routine coverage required enrollee cost sharing. Managed care plans generally provided consistent or enhanced coverage relative to fee-for-service programs, although coverage sometimes varied between plans within a state. We estimated that about 6.5 million and 14.6 million adult enrollees resided in states without comprehensive coverage for routine eye exams and glasses, respectively. These findings reveal important gaps and opportunities for states to increase access to routine vision care.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared quality of life (QoL) of myopic adults and children who were established spectacle, soft contact lens (SCL), or orthokeratology (OK) wearers as well as parent/child responses using Pediatric Refractive Error Profile 2 (PREP2).
METHODS: Forty-eight adults (aged 18-26 years), 49 children (aged 9-17 years), and the children\'s parent, completed PREP2, with 7 subscales (symptoms, vision, activities, appearance, peer perception, handling, and overall). Adults and children must have worn their correction for at least three years. Parents were asked to answer how they thought their child would answer. Scores were compared between age groups, among correction groups, and between children and their parents using non-parametric ANOVA, Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests, as appropriate. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons among correction groups were conducted with Bonferroni adjustment.
RESULTS: Average age of adults was 22 ± 2 and children was 14 ± 2 years, and duration of correction use was 8 ± 3 for adults and 5 ± 2 years for children (both p < 0.01). Adult OK wearers were more satisfied with vision (p = 0.04), activities (p < 0.001) and overall (p = 0.03) compared to spectacle wearers. Children OK wearers reported higher scores for activities than SCL (p = 0.048) and spectacle wearers (p < 0.001). Parents of contact lens wearers reported higher perceived QoL for activities (OK p < 0.001; SCL p = 0.02), handling (OK p = 0.02; SCL p < 0.001), appearance (SCL p = 0.001), and overall (OK p = 0.001; SCL p < 0.001) subscales than parents of child spectacle wearers.
CONCLUSIONS: Activity-driven children and adults perceive significant benefits from OK over spectacles. Parents\' perceptions did not align with their children\'s perceptions of their correction.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the one-year efficacy of myopia prevention and control using three optical intervention methods - single vision lens (SVL), high aspherical lenticule (HAL), and orthokeratology (OK) lens - in children with low myopia.
METHODS: A cohort of 150 children aged 7-13 years with low myopia was recruited and divided into three groups: SVL (n = 50), HAL (n = 50), and OK lens group (n = 50), based on their preference for glasses. Follow-up assessments were carried out over one year, focusing on data from the right eye for statistical analysis. Baseline characteristics such as gender, age, axial length (AL), spherical equivalent refractive error (SER), flat keratometry (K1), steep keratometry (K2), anterior chamber depth (ACD), white-to-white corneal diameter (WTW), and non-contact tonometry (NCT) measurements were gathered and compared among the three groups before any intervention. Changes in AL growth after 1 year of intervention were assessed across the three groups. Subsequently, the AL growth control rates between the HAL and OK lens groups were compared, with the SVL group serving as the reference standard.
RESULTS: The study found no statistically significant variances in baseline characteristics (gender, age, SER, AL, K1, K2, WTW, and NCT) among the SVL, HAL, and OK lens groups (all p > 0.05). Following a one-year intervention, AL growth rates were as follows: HAL group (0.163 ± 0.113 mm) < OK lens group (0.280 ± 0.170 mm) < SVL group (0.516 ± 0.190 mm), with statistically significant disparities (p < 0.05). The HAL group demonstrated a higher 1-year AL growth control rate (68.41%) compared to the OK lens group (45.74%) for children aged 7-13 with low myopia, with a statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). And there was significant difference in the SER change between SVL group and HAL group (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SVL, HAL and OK lens are more effective in controlling axial growth in mild myopia. Specifically, HAL maybe shows superior outcomes in both preventive and corrective measures, also it needs to be supported by more studies from randomized controlled experiments.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify clinical guidelines that provide recommendations on prescribing refractive error correction in children, evaluate the overall quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and subsequently gain consensus on the prescribing recommendations from high-quality guidelines using the modified Delphi technique.
METHODS: A comprehensive search for prescribing guidelines was conducted using databases and professional websites. The quality appraisal of eligible guidelines was undertaken by scoring the six AGREE II domains. Subsequently, the modified Delphi technique was used by 10 experts (sub-specialist optometrists, ophthalmologists and orthoptists) to gain consensus on the prescribing recommendation statements extracted from guidelines that had been identified as high quality. Three rounds were conducted in which agreement of these statements were scored using a 9-point Likert scale with a free-text option for any additional comments.
RESULTS: Five eligible guidelines were identified. The AGREE II tool demonstrated that the guidelines varied substantially in quality, with only one guideline identified as being of high quality. A total of 168 prescribing statements were reviewed in the Delphi procedure. Of these, 95 statements reached expert consensus as being appropriate prescribing recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: There is significant scope for improving current guidelines for prescribing refractive error correction in children. We used the modified Delphi technique to find points of agreement on prescribing recommendations to support professionals prescribing refractive error correction in children. We recommend that further work is needed to address gaps in the guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Myopia and especially high myopia are recognised as major public health concerns. Although the prevalence of high myopia in young children is low, 10-20% of high school children in Asia have high myopia, with many still progressing, and one in three patients with high myopia develop visual impairment with age. Most participants in myopia control studies have low and moderate myopia; relatively little is known about myopia control in high myopia.
METHODS: Literature searches were undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify publications in English, investigating (Aim 1) the efficacy of myopia control strategies (environmental, pharmacological and optical) in high myopia (≤-6.00 D) and (Aim 2) the complications of high myopia using keywords. Outcomes included change in spherical equivalent refractive error (SE) and/or axial length (AL) to evaluate progression in high myopia.
RESULTS: Aim 1: Twelve studies were identified that reported the efficacy of optical and pharmacological (none on environmental) interventions on AL and SE for high myopia control. A statistically significant reduction in progression of SE and AL in high myopes was reported with 1% and 0.5% atropine. Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segment spectacle lenses had lower efficacy in slowing high myopia progression compared to moderate and low myopia. Ortho-K lenses were equally effective in reducing myopia progression in low, moderate and high myopia. Aim 2: Myopic patients have an increased risk of myopic macular degeneration, retinal detachment, cataract and glaucoma, with the risk increasing with the level of myopia.
CONCLUSIONS: High myopia has significant effects on quality of life, risk of pathological complications and vision impairment. Young children, excluding those with some syndromic associations, who are fast progressing moderate and high myopes require early intervention and close monitoring. Further research investigating the efficacy of myopia control strategies in highly myopic patients, both independently and through combination treatments, are necessary.

BACKGROUND: Myopia is increasing in prevalence worldwide. Combination therapy showed a better effect on myopia control than monotherapy. Repeated low-level red light therapy (RLRL) therapy and defocus-incorporated multiple segment (DIMS) spectacle lenses have been reported to retard myopia progression significantly. However, whether these two therapies are better than one is still unknown. The present study aims to report the study protocol of a trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of RLRL and DIMS versus DIMS alone for reducing the progression of myopia among Chinese school-aged children.
METHODS: This study is a 12-month, randomized, parallel-controlled, single-center clinical trial. We will recruit children aged 8-12 years with spherical equivalence (SE) between - 0.50 D and - 6.00 D under cycloplegia in both eyes. We will recruit 66 participants with an allocation ratio of 1:1 from our hospital. Participants in the intervention group will be treated with an RLRL therapy device twice a day from Monday to Friday at home, 3 min per session, with a minimum interval of 4 h, under the supervision of their parents/guardians. They will wear DIMS spectacles for myopia correction during the day. Participants in the control group will not receive the RLRL therapy and will only wear DIMS spectacles to correct myopia. Participants from both groups will attend the hospital every 6 months. The primary outcome is the change in axial length at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include changes in refraction under cycloplegia, optical coherence tomography (OCT), multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG), color vision, and participants\' self-reporting of adverse events at 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: This study will report the efficacy and safety outcome of the combination therapy of RLRL and DIMS versus DIMS for school-aged children with myopia in detail.
BACKGROUND: ChiCTR2300075398. Registered 4 September 2023. https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=200751 .

OBJECTIVE: Recreational runners who need refractive visual correction will need to choose the type of visual correction (spectacles, contact lenses, or no correction) to wear when running. The prevalence of correction choices and distinguishing demographic features associated with these choices of correction were investigated.
METHODS: A 26-item online questionnaire covering demographics, running habits, and visual corrections used was answered by 941 people. Participants were aged 18 years or older, considered themselves a recreational runner and reported needing refractive correction for everyday life. Bivariate analyses and binary logistic regression were used to determine the variables independently associated with including or avoiding types of correction for running.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants ran an average of 3.8times, 3.6hours, and 33.4km per week. Running habits were not associated with type of visual correction, suggesting that visual correction does not present a barrier to participating in recreational running. Solely using spectacles for running was the most common choice (38.8%) and they were worn for running at least sometimes by 65.8%. Fewer people wore spectacles for running than for general purposes (98.9%), suggesting spectacles have limitations for running. Spectacle wear for running was significantly associated with not having contact lenses available and longer duration of wearing visual correction. Running without correction was a common choice, with 15.5% of the sample only running without correction, and 26.2% running at least sometimes without their visual correction. Not wearing correction was significantly associated with not having contact lenses, a shorter duration of wearing visual correction, and a lower myopic refractive error. Contact lenses were the sole correction for running for 15.6% and were worn for running at least sometimes by 40.5%. Contact lenses were significantly more likely to be used by women and younger runners. Signposting runners to contact lenses if this has not previously been considered is recommended.

暂无摘要。