TY - JOUR
T1 - Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice – 2019 Update
AU - Wolffsohn, James S.
AU - Calossi, Antonio
AU - Cho, Pauline
AU - Gifford, Kate
AU - Jones, Lyndon
AU - Jones, Deborah
AU - Guthrie, Sarah
AU - Li, Ming
AU - Lipener, Cesar
AU - Logan, Nicola S.
AU - Malet, Florence
AU - Peixoto-de-Matos, Sofia C.
AU - González-Méijome, José M.
AU - Nichols, Jason J.
AU - Orr, Janis B.
AU - Santodomingo-Rubido, Jacinto
AU - Schaefer, Tania
AU - Thite, Nilesh
AU - van der Worp, Eef
AU - Tarutta, Elena
AU - Iomdina, Elena
AU - Ali, Bariah Mohd
AU - Villa-Collar, César
AU - Abesamis-Dichoso, Carmen
AU - Chen, Connie
AU - Pult, Heiko
AU - Blaser, Pascal
AU - Parra Sandra Johanna, Garzon
AU - Iqbal, Fatima
AU - Ramos, Raul
AU - Carrillo Orihuela, Guillermo
AU - Boychev, Nikolay
PY - 2020/2
Y1 - 2020/2
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Attitudes
KW - Global
KW - Myopia control
KW - Myopia management
KW - Myopia progression
KW - Orthokeratology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076526905&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clae.2019.11.002
DO - 10.1016/j.clae.2019.11.002
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 31761738
AN - SCOPUS:85076526905
SN - 1367-0484
VL - 43
SP - 9
EP - 17
JO - Contact Lens and Anterior Eye
JF - Contact Lens and Anterior Eye
IS - 1
ER -