Dataset Information

Assessment of patient compliance in orthokeratology and analysis of influencing factors: a cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient non-compliance, that is, failure to perform standard wear and care orthokeratology (ortho-k) lenses procedures, has been shown to be a major risk factor for contact lens-associated complications. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the compliance with wear and care behaviors of ortho-k patients and analyze its influencing factors.

Methods

Patients who were successfully prescribed ortho-k lenses at the Eye Center of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine (ECSAHZU) were enrolled in the study. Patient compliance with wear and care behaviors was examined through a questionnaire.

Results

This study assessed 238 subjects. The subjects’ ages ranged from 7 to 25 (mean ± SD, 11.3 ± 2.5) years. The compliance with wear and care behaviors was 19.7%, and the subjects’ self-assessment compliance was 96.6%. The compliance rate of subjects wearing lenses for less than 1 year was higher than that of subjects wearing lenses for more than 1 year (p < 0.001). In the first year, the compliance rates of wearing experiences for less than 1 month, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and more than 6 months were 45, 29, 21.6, 20, and 27.6%, respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences in compliance among these periods (p = 0.314). No correlation was identified between compliance and age (r = − 0.061, p = 0.527) or sex (r = 0.114, p = 0. 751). There was no correlation between compliance and lens care operator (r = − 0.626, p = 0.151).

Conclusions

The compliance of ortho-k patients was poor. After wearing ortho-k lenses for more than 1 year, compliance with wear and care behaviors declined. In clinical practice, measures should be taken to solve these problems and improve the safety of wearing ortho-k lenses.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12886-021-02148-2.

SUBMITTER: Bian Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8594163 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA better understanding of the current features of lung cancer clinical research registration is important for improving registration quality and standardizing the registration. This study aimed to assess the registration quality of lung cancer studies on ClinicalTrials.gov and analyze the influencing factors.MethodsLung cancer clinical researches registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database were searched on 7 July 2021. The characteristics of trials that registered up to 7 July 2021 were assessed. The quality of completed and terminated lung cancer studies from 1 July 2007 to 7 July 2020 was assessed using a modified version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS, V.1.3.1). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was also used to analyze the factors influencing study registration quality. An above-average registration quality score represented a high registration quality.ResultsA total of 6,448 clinical studies on lung cancer were used to summarise the registration characteristics. Most interventional studies were randomized (41.88%), single group (48.07%), and open-label (82.86%) studies, while most observational studies were cohort studies (59.08%). In total, 2,171 completed and terminated studies were assessed, with an average quality score (out of 54) of 36.76±5.69. None of the assessed studies had a 100% modified TRDS reporting rate, and missing summary results were the main factor affecting the quality scores. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that prospective registrations [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.79-2.65], multi-center studies (aOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.39-2.16), government-sponsored studies (aOR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.48-6.42), and published studies (aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.15-1.78) were more likely to be high quality research.ConclusionsTo improve the quality of registration, awareness of prospective registration should be further improved and government investment should be increased. At the same time, more efficient and extensive data sharing after completion of the studies should be actively promoted.

Project description:BackgroundThe diagnostic pathway of Parkinson's disease (PD) is often complicated. Experiences during this pathway can affect patients' satisfaction and their confidence and trust in healthcare providers. Although healthcare providers cannot influence the impact of the diagnosis, they can influence how patients experience the pathway. This study, therefore, aims to provide insight into PD patients' dissatisfaction with the diagnostic pathway and to describe the factors that influence it.MethodsWe carried out a cross-sectional survey study among 902 patient members of the Dutch Parkinson's Disease Association, who were each asked to write an essay about their diagnostic pathway. A coding format was developed to examine the content of these essays. Inter-observer agreement on coding patient dissatisfaction was calculated using Cohen's kappa. The ?2 test and a multivariable logistic regression analysis were performed to assess the relation between dissatisfaction and sex, level of education, duration of the pathway, communication with the general practitioner (GP) and the neurologist, the number of healthcare providers involved, whether or not a second opinion had taken place (including the person who initiated it) and diagnostic delay (taking into consideration who caused the delay according to the patient). A subgroup analysis was performed to gain insight into sex-related differences.ResultsOf all patients, 16.4% explicitly described they were dissatisfied with the diagnostic pathway, whereas 4.8% were very satisfied. The inter-observer agreement on coding dissatisfaction was ??=?0.82. The chance of dissatisfaction increased with a lower level of education, the involvement of more than one additional healthcare provider, a second opinion initiated by the patient and delay caused by a healthcare provider. When only the GP and the neurologist were involved, women were more likely to be dissatisfied than men.ConclusionsPD patients' dissatisfaction with the diagnostic pathway is related to a lower level of education, a second opinion initiated by the patient and experienced diagnostic delay. GPs can positively influence patients' experiences if they are aware of these risk factors for dissatisfaction and pay extra attention to communication and shared decision making. This will contribute to a trusting therapeutic relationship that is indispensable with progression of the disease.