Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice – 2019 Update

James S. Wolffsohn, Antonio Calossi, Pauline Cho, Kate Gifford, Lyndon Jones, Deborah Jones, Sarah Guthrie, Ming Li, Cesar Lipener, Nicola S. Logan, Florence Malet, Sofia C. Peixoto-de-Matos, José M. González-Méijome, Jason J. Nichols, Janis B. Orr, Jacinto Santodomingo-Rubido, Tania Schaefer, Nilesh Thite, Eef van der Worp, Elena TaruttaElena Iomdina, Bariah Mohd Ali, César Villa-Collar, Carmen Abesamis-Dichoso, Connie Chen, Heiko Pult, Pascal Blaser, Garzon Parra Sandra Johanna, Fatima Iqbal, Raul Ramos, Guillermo Carrillo Orihuela, Nikolay Boychev

Research output: Journal article publicationJournal articleAcademic researchpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)9-17
Number of pages9
JournalContact Lens and Anterior Eye
Volume43
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2020

Keywords

  • Attitudes
  • Global
  • Myopia control
  • Myopia management
  • Myopia progression
  • Orthokeratology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Optometry

Cite this