Dataset Information

Barriers, motivators and enablers for dispensing multifocal contact lenses in Mumbai, India.

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

ACCESS DATA

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]

PMID: 25563404

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Barriers, motivators and enablers for dispensing multifocal contact lenses in Mumbai, India.

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Barriers, motivators and enablers for dispensing multifocal contact lenses in Mumbai, India.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets