Barriers, motivators and enablers for dispensing multifocal contact lenses in Mumbai, India.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
To understand the potential barriers, motivators and enablers in dispensing multifocal contact lenses (MFCL).Method
Two focus group discussions were conducted to design questionnaires regarding the prescribing habits for multifocal contact lenses (MFCL). Questions on potential barriers and motivators were included. The questionnaires were distributed among 133 eye care practitioners across Mumbai, India. Practitioners fitting one or less patient per month with MFCL completed the survey describing potential barriers, while those who prescribed more MFCL's per month completed the survey describing enablers and motivators.Results
Responses from 102 practitioners were received. Most common potential barriers in prescribing MFCL were increased chair time (75%), lack of readily available trials (69%) and limitation in power range (63%). Lack of awareness among patients (90%) was the most common barrier from patients' outlook. Professional satisfaction (88%) and better business proposition (82%) were observed as main motivators while availability of the trials (84%) and correct patient selection (82%) were the major enablers. Graduate Optometrists felt dispensing MFCL did not offer a good business proposition (p=0.02). Experienced practitioners were observed to be least motivated (p=0.01) and believed that their patients found these lenses expensive (p=0.02).Conclusion
To enhance the MFCL practice, barriers like lack of awareness and limitations in power range must be addressed. Trial lens availability may motivate practitioners to prescribe MFCL. Further probing is required to understand lack of motivation among experienced practitioners.
SUBMITTER: Thite N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4314618 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan-Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Barriers, motivators and enablers for dispensing multifocal contact lenses in Mumbai, India.
Thite Nilesh N Shah Ukti U Mehta Jasmin J Jurkus Janice J
Journal of optometry 20150104 1
<h4>Purpose</h4>To understand the potential barriers, motivators and enablers in dispensing multifocal contact lenses (MFCL).<h4>Method</h4>Two focus group discussions were conducted to design questionnaires regarding the prescribing habits for multifocal contact lenses (MFCL). Questions on potential barriers and motivators were included. The questionnaires were distributed among 133 eye care practitioners across Mumbai, India. Practitioners fitting one or less patient per month with MFCL comple ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Bifocal and multifocal optical devices are intended to get images into focus from objects placed at different distances from the observer. Spectacles, contact lenses, and intraocular lenses can meet the requirements to provide such a solution. Contact lenses provide unique characteristics as a platform for implementing bifocality and multifocality. Compared to spectacles, they are closer to the eye, providing a wider field of view, less distortion, and their use is more consistent as they are not so easily removed along the day. In addition, contact lenses are also minimally invasive, can be easily exchangeable, and, therefore, suitable for conditions in which surgical procedures are not indicated. Contact lenses can remain centered with the eye despite eye movements, providing the possibility for simultaneous imaging from different object distances. The main current indications for bifocal and multifocal contact lenses include presbyopia correction in adult population and myopia control in children. Considering the large numbers of potential candidates for optical correction of presbyopia and the demographic trends in myopia, the potential impact of contact lenses for presbyopia and myopia applications is undoubtedly tremendous. However, the ocular characteristics and expectations vary significantly between young and older candidates and impose different challenges in fitting bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia and myopia control. This review presents the recent developments in material platforms, optical designs, simulated visual performance, and the clinical performance assessment of bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia correction and/or myopia progression control.
| S-EPMC7152962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:It is unclear whether multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs) affect visual quality when they are used for myopia control in juvenile myopes. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the effect of MFSCLs on visual quality among juvenile myopia subjects. Methods:In a prospective, intervention study, thirty-three juvenile myopes were enrolled. Visual perception was assessed by a quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire with spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear. At the one-month visit, the high (96%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance HCVA) and low (10%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance LCVA) were measured with single vision spectacle lenses, single vision soft contact lenses (SVSCLs) and MFSCLs in a random order. Wavefront aberrations were measured with SVSCLs, with MFSCLs, and without any correction. Results:Neither distance HCVA (p?>?0.05) nor distance LCVA (p?>?0.05) revealed any significant difference between MFSCLs, SVSCLs and single vision spectacle lenses. The overall score (the sum of ten symptoms) of the QoV questionnaire did not show a statistically significant difference between spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear (p?=?0.357). The results showed that the frequency (p?<?0.001), severity (p?=?0.001) and bothersome degree (p?=?0.016) of halos were significantly worse when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. In contrast, the bothersome degree caused by focusing difficulty (p?=?0.046) and the frequency of difficulty in judging distance or depth perception (p?=?0.046) were better when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. Compared with the naked eye, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p?<?0.001), higher-order aberrations (p?<?0.001), trefoil (p?=?0.023), coma aberrations (p?<?0.001) and spherical aberrations (SA) (p?<?0.001). Compared with the SVSCLs, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p?<?0.001), higher-order aberrations (p?<?0.001), coma aberrations (p?<?0.001) and SA (p?<?0.001). The direction of SA was more positive (p?<?0.001) with the MFSCLs and more negative (p?=?0.001) with the SVSCLs compared with the naked eye. Conclusions:Wearing MFSCLs can provide satisfactory corrected visual acuity (both distance HCVA and distance LCVA). Although the lenses increased the aberrations, such as total aberrations and higher-order aberrations, there were few adverse effects on the distance HCVA, distance LCVA and visual perception after 1 month of MFSCL use. Trial registration:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-OOC-17012103. Registered 23 July 2017, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx.
| S-EPMC7368986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To thematically synthesise primary qualitative studies of the barriers, motivators and enablers of smoke-free homes (SFHs).Systematic review and thematic synthesis.Searches of MEDLINE, EBM Reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), PsycINFO, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science, Informit and EMBASE, combining terms for families, households and vulnerable populations; SFH and secondhand smoke; and qualitative research, were supplemented by searches of PhD theses, key authors, specialist journals and reference lists.We included 22 articles, reporting on 18 studies, involving 646 participants.peer-reviewed; English language; published from 1990 onwards (to week 3 of April 2014); used qualitative data collection methods; explored participants' perspectives of home smoking behaviours; and the barriers, motivators and enablers to initiating and/or maintaining a SFH.1 of 3 authors extracted data with checking by a second.A thematic synthesis was performed to develop 7 core analytic themes: (1) knowledge, awareness and risk perception; (2) agency and personal skills/attributes; (3) wider community norms and personal moral responsibilities; (4) social relationships and influence of others; (5) perceived benefits, preferences and priorities; (6) addiction and habit; (7) practicalities.This synthesis highlights the complexity faced by many households in having a SFH, the practical, social, cultural and personal issues that need to be addressed and balanced by households, and that while some of these are common across study settings, specific social and cultural factors play a critical role in shaping household smoking behaviours. The findings can inform policy and practice and the development of interventions aimed at increasing SFHs.CRD42014014115.
| S-EPMC4800143 | biostudies-other
Project description:SIGNIFICANCE:Practitioners fitting contact lenses for myopia control frequently question whether a myopic child can achieve good vision with a high-add multifocal. We demonstrate that visual acuity is not different than spectacles with a commercially available, center-distance soft multifocal contact lens (MFCL) (Biofinity Multifocal "D"; +2.50 D add). PURPOSE:To determine the spherical over-refraction (SOR) necessary to obtain best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) when fitting myopic children with a center-distance soft MFCL. METHODS:Children (n = 294) aged 7 to 11 years with myopia (spherical component) of -0.75 to -5.00 diopters (D) (inclusive) and 1.00 D cylinder or less (corneal plane) were fitted bilaterally with +2.50 D add Biofinity "D" MFCLs. The initial MFCL power was the spherical equivalent of a standardized subjective refraction, rounded to the nearest 0.25 D step (corneal plane). An SOR was performed monocularly (each eye) to achieve BCVA. Binocular, high-contrast logMAR acuity was measured with manifest spectacle correction and MFCLs with over-refraction. Photopic pupil size was measured with a pupilometer. RESULTS:The mean (±SD) age was 10.3 ± 1.2 years, and the mean (±SD) SOR needed to achieve BCVA was OD: -0.61 ± 0.24 D/OS: -0.58 ± 0.27 D. There was no difference in binocular high-contrast visual acuity (logMAR) between spectacles (-0.01 ± 0.06) and best-corrected MFCLs (-0.01 ± 0.07) (P = .59). The mean (±SD) photopic pupil size (5.4 ± 0.7 mm) was not correlated with best MFCL correction or the over-refraction magnitude (both P ? .09). CONCLUSIONS:Children achieved BCVA with +2.50 D add MFCLs that was not different than with spectacles. Children typically required an over-refraction of -0.50 to -0.75 D to achieve BCVA. With a careful over-refraction, these +2.50 D add MFCLs provide good distance acuity, making them viable candidates for myopia control.
| S-EPMC5880703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SIGNIFICANCE:The Bifocal Lenses In Nearsighted Kids (BLINK) study is the first soft multifocal contact lens myopia control study to compare add powers and measure peripheral refractive error in the vertical meridian, so it will provide important information about the potential mechanism of myopia control. PURPOSE:The BLINK study is a National Eye Institute-sponsored, double-masked, randomized clinical trial to investigate the effects of soft multifocal contact lenses on myopia progression. This article describes the subjects' baseline characteristics and study methods. METHODS:Subjects were 7 to 11 years old, had -0.75 to -5.00 spherical component and less than 1.00 diopter (D) astigmatism, and had 20/25 or better logMAR distance visual acuity with manifest refraction in each eye and with +2.50-D add soft bifocal contact lenses on both eyes. Children were randomly assigned to wear Biofinity single-vision, Biofinity Multifocal "D" with a +1.50-D add power, or Biofinity Multifocal "D" with a +2.50-D add power contact lenses. RESULTS:We examined 443 subjects at the baseline visits, and 294 (66.4%) subjects were enrolled. Of the enrolled subjects, 177 (60.2%) were female, and 200 (68%) were white. The mean (± SD) age was 10.3 ± 1.2 years, and 117 (39.8%) of the eligible subjects were younger than 10 years. The mean spherical equivalent refractive error, measured by cycloplegic autorefraction was -2.39 ± 1.00 D. The best-corrected binocular logMAR visual acuity with glasses was +0.01 ± 0.06 (20/21) at distance and -0.03 ± 0.08 (20/18) at near. CONCLUSIONS:The BLINK study subjects are similar to patients who would routinely be eligible for myopia control in practice, so the results will provide clinical information about soft bifocal contact lens myopia control as well as information about the mechanism of the treatment effect, if one occurs.
| S-EPMC5607949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo compare the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along three visual field meridians of 16 commercial single vision (SV), bifocal (BF) and multifocal (MF) test contact lenses with a single vision control.MethodForty-four participants [24.2±2.4 years, SE: -0.50 to -4.50D] were randomly fitted, contra-laterally, with 6 SV's [Air Optix Aqua (control), Acuvue Oasys, Biofinity, Clariti, Night & Day and Proclear], 3 BF's [Acuvue Bifocal low and high add, MiSight] and 8 MF's [Proclear D & N in 1.5 and 2.5D adds; AirOptix, PureVision low & high adds]. Peripheral refraction was performed across horizontal, oblique and vertical meridians, with lenses on eye using the BHVI-EyeMapper. The power vectors M, J0, J45 and the spherical aberration coefficient were analysed. The peripheral refraction and aberration profiles of the test lenses were compared with the profiles of the control lens using curvature and slope coefficients.ResultsCompared to the control, a relative peripheral hyperopic shift (M), a less negative J0 curvature coefficient along the horizontal meridian, a less positive J0 curvature coefficient along the vertical meridian, a less negative J45 curvature coefficient along the oblique meridian and a more positive spherical aberration curvature coefficient along most meridians was seen with the Acuvue Bifocal and all center-near multifocal lenses. For the center-distance multifocal lenses the direction of the curvature coefficients of the same refraction and aberration components was opposite to that of the center-near lenses. The greatest differences in the slope coefficients when compared to the control were found for the Acuvue Bifocal lenses and all multifocal contact lenses for the refractive component M and the spherical aberration coefficient along the horizontal visual field meridian, with the Acuvue Bifocal and the center-near multifocal lenses having more positive coefficients and the center-distance lenses having more negative coefficients.ConclusionWhen worn on eye, different commercially available lens types produce differences in the direction and magnitude of the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along different visual field meridians. This information may be relevant to refractive development and myopia control.
| S-EPMC6951842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeMultifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) are often discouraged in patients with or at risk of retinal disorders (including diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, and epiretinal membranes), as MIOLs are believed to reduce contrast sensitivity (CS). Concerns with MIOLs have also been raised in individuals with visual field defects, fixation instability or eccentric preferred retinal locations. The aim of this study is to review the influence of MIOL on quality of vision in patients with retinal diseases.MethodsWe reviewed the PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies using the following keywords: multifocal intraocular lens, cataract surgery, cataract extraction, lens exchange, diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, and contrast sensitivity.ResultsStudies evaluating CS in MIOLs present conflicting results: MIOLs either did not influence CS or resulted in worse performance under low-illuminance conditions and higher spatial frequencies when compared to monofocal IOLs. Nevertheless, MIOLs preserved CS levels within the age-matched normal range. Two studies reported that patients with concurrent retinal diseases receiving a MIOL, both unilaterally and bilaterally, reported a significant improvement in visual-related outcomes. Individuals with a monofocal IOL in one eye and a MIOL in the fellow eye reported greater subjective satisfaction with the MIOL.ConclusionWe were unable to find evidence suggesting that patients with retinal diseases should be advised against MIOLs. Nevertheless, more research is needed to address the aforementioned concerns and to optimize the use of MIOLs in eyes with retinal disease.
| S-EPMC7575463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Contact lens is a ubiquitous technology used for vision correction and cosmetics. Sensing in contact lenses has emerged as a potential platform for minimally invasive point-of-care diagnostics. Here, a microlithography method is developed to fabricate microconcavities and microchannels in a hydrogel-based contact lens via a combination of laser patterning and embedded templating. Optical microlithography parameters influencing the formation of microconcavities including ablation power (4.3 W) and beam speed (50 mm s-1 ) are optimized to control the microconcavity depth (100 µm) and diameter (1.5 mm). The fiber templating method allows the production of microchannels having a diameter range of 100-150 µm. Leak-proof microchannel and microconcavity connections in contact lenses are validated through flow testing of artificial tear containing fluorescent microbeads (Ø = 1-2 µm). The microconcavities of contact lenses are functionalized with multiplexed fluorophores (2 µL) to demonstrate optical excitation and emission capability within the visible spectrum. The fabricated microfluidic contact lenses may have applications in ophthalmic monitoring of metabolic disorders at point-of-care settings and controlled drug release for therapeutics.
| S-EPMC6607692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver 75% of the medical devices used in India are imported. Often, they are costly and maladapted to low-resource settings. We have prepared case studies of six firms in Bangalore that could contribute to solving this problem. They have developed (or are developing) innovative health care products and therefore are pioneers in the Indian health care sector, better known for its reverse engineering skills. We have sought to understand what enablers and barriers they encountered.MethodsInformation for the case studies was collected through semi-structured interviews. Initially, over 40 stakeholders of the diagnostics sector in India were interviewed to understand the sector. However the focus here is on the six featured companies. Further information was obtained from company material and other published resources.ResultsIn all cases, product innovation has been enabled by close interaction with local medical practitioners, links to global science and technology and global regulatory requirements. The major challenges were the lack of guidance on product specifications from the national regulatory agency, paucity of institutionalized health care payers and lack of transparency and formalized Health Technology Assessment in coverage decision-making. The absence of national evidence-based guidelines and of compulsory continuous education for medical practitioners were key obstacles in accessing the poorly regulated and fragmented private market.ConclusionsInnovative Indian companies would benefit from a strengthened capacity and interdisciplinary work culture of the national device regulatory body, institutionalized health care payers and medical councils and associations. Continuous medical education and national medical guidelines for medical practitioners would facilitate market access for innovative products.
| S-EPMC3669049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is high level policy consensus in India that community engagement (CE) improves vaccination uptake and reduces burden of vaccine preventable diseases. However, to date, vaccination studies in the country have not explicitly focused on CE as an outcome in and of itself. Therefore, this study sought to examine the barriers and enablers of community engagement for vaccination in India.MethodsEmploying qualitative methods, twenty-five semi-structured elite interviews among vaccine decisionmakers' were triangulated with twenty-four national-level vaccine policy documents and researcher field notes (December 2017 to February 2018). Data collected for this study included perceptions and examples of enablers of and barriers to CE for vaccination uptake. Concepts, such as the absence of formal procedures or data collection approaches related to CE, were confirmed during document review, and a final convening to review study results was conducted with study respondents in December 2018 and January 2019 to affirm the general set of findings from this study. The Social Ecological Model (SEM) was used to organize and interpret the study findings.ResultsAlthough decisionmakers and policy documents generally supported CE, there were more CE barriers than facilitators in the context of vaccination, which were identified at all social-ecological levels. Interviews with vaccine decisionmakers in India revealed complex systemic and structural factors which affect CE for vaccination and are present across each of the SEM levels, from individual to policy. Policy-level enablers included decisionmakers' political will for CE and policy documents and interviews highlighted social mobilization, whereas barriers were lack of a CE strategy document and a broad understanding of CE by decisionmakers. At the community level, dissemination of Social-behavioral Change Communication (SBCC) materials from the national-level to the states was considered a CE facilitator, while class, and caste-based power relations in the community, lack of family-centric CE strategies, and paternalistic attitude of decisionmakers toward communities (the latter reported by some NGO heads) were considered CE barriers. At the organizational level, partnerships with local organizations were considered CE enablers, while lack of institutionalized support to formalize and incentivize these partnerships highlighted by several decisionmakers, were barriers. At the interpersonal level, SBCC training for healthcare workers, sensitive messaging to communities with low vaccine confidence, and social media messaging were considered CE facilitators. The lack of strategies to manage vaccine related rumors or replicate successful CE interventions during the during the introduction and rollout of new vaccines were perceived as CE barriers by several decisionmakers.ConclusionData obtained for this study highlighted national-level perceptions of the complexities and challenges of CE across the entire SEM, from individual to systemic levels. Future studies should attempt to associate these enablers and barriers with actual CE outcomes, such as participation or community support in vaccine policy-making, CE implementation for specific vaccines and situations (such as disease outbreaks), or frequency of sub-population-based incidents of community resistance and community facilitation to vaccination uptake. There would likely be value in developing a population-based operational definition of CE, with a step-by-step manual on 'how to do CE.' The data from this study also indicate the importance of including CE indicators in national datasets and developing a compendium documenting CE best-practices. Doing so would allow more rigorous analysis of the evidence-base for CE for vaccination in India and other countries with similar immunization programs.
| S-EPMC8232440 | biostudies-literature