Spectacle prescribing II: practitioner experience is linked to the likelihood of suggesting a partial prescription

What are patients' beliefs about, and experiences of, adaptation to glasses and how does this affect their wearing habits?

PURPOSE

It is well known that some patients experience difficulties adapting to new glasses. However, little is known about what patients themselves understand of the adaptation process, and how this influences their attitudes and the decisions they make when adapting to a new pair of glasses. Nor is it understood whether these factors affect their wearing habits.

METHODS

We conducted four focus groups. Participants were 22 glasses wearers (mean ± SD age 43 ± 14 years, range 21-71 years) who reported they: (1) wore spectacle correction for distance vision (single vision, bifocal or progressive lenses); (2) had struggled to get used to a new pair of glasses and (3) sometimes chose not to wear their distance correction. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified three themes. Trust is about how participants' trust in their optometrist and themselves influences the likelihood of them adapting successfully to new glasses. Conflict describes how the advice patients have received about adapting to glasses can conflict with what they have experienced and how this conflict influences their expectations. Part of Me explores how participants' experiences and feelings about their glasses are important to adaptation and this includes physical, visual, emotional and behavioural aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

The traditional optometric perspective of adaptation to glasses is much narrower than that held by patients, and significantly underestimates the physical, behavioural and emotional adaptation that patients must go through in order to feel fully comfortable wearing their glasses. Patients should receive significantly more information about adaptation, including symptoms that may be experienced and why these happen, practical tips to aid adaptation, and when and how to raise concerns. Patients should also receive information about the day-to-day effects of blur adaptation to avoid them not wearing their glasses, including for vision-critical tasks such as driving.

Ophthalmology Provider Ratings and Patient, Disease, and Appointment Factors

The purpose of the current study is to examine how nonmodifiable sociodemographic, disease, appointment, management, and survey factors correlate with provider rating. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted on 29 857 patient Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys collected from January 2017 to January 2019 at a tertiary eye center. We included surveys of patients aged 18 years or older, who answered at least 4 of 6 subfield questions, and completed the survey within 90 days of the appointment. The main outcome was the odds of receiving top box score (TBS) of 10/10 on the survey question regarding overall provider rating. The results showed that the variables with higher odds of TBS included higher overall appointment attendance (odds ratio [OR]: 2.66 [95% CI: 1.23-5.75], P = .013); older patient age (OR 2.44 [95% CI: 2.08-2.87], P < .001]; higher percentage of survey questions completed (OR: 2.02 [95% CI: 1.79-2.27], P < .001); better best corrected visual acuity (OR: 1.85 [95% CI: 1.3-2.64], P = .001); optometry clinic visit (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.15-1.36], P < .001); having procedures (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.04-1.36], P = .013), surgery scheduled (OR: 1.18 [95% CI: 1.03-1.36], P = .020], or refraction done (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.08-1.25], P < .001); being seen by male providers (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 1.04-1.17], P = .001); and having additional eye testing performed (OR: 1.06 [95% CI: 1.00-1.13], P = .048). Variables associated with lower odds of TBS included longer time to complete survey (OR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.3-0.58], P = .001); new patient encounter (OR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.58-0.65], P < .001); and glaucoma (OR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.59-0.75], P < .001), cornea (OR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87], P < .001), or comprehensive clinic visits (OR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.79-0.94], P < .001). Thus, nonmodifiable factors may affect the provider rating, and these factors should be studied further and accounted for when interpreting the results of patient experience surveys.

Spectacle non-tolerance in clinical practice - a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Spectacle non-tolerance or adverse events to spectacle wear are serious concerns for both patients and practitioners. Non-tolerance may contribute to a negative impact on the practitioner's ability and practice. Therefore, a detailed understanding of frequency and causes of spectacle non-tolerance in clinical ophthalmic practice is essential. This review aimed to determine the prevalence and causes of non-tolerance to spectacles prescribed and dispensed in clinical practice.

METHOD

The current systematic review included quantitative studies published in the English language that reported spectacle non-tolerance in clinical practice. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and the Web of Science database for studies published until 13 July 2020. An adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) modified for cross-sectional studies was used to assess the quality of each included study. Five investigations with 205,478 study participants were included in the review. The prevalence of spectacle non-tolerance from individual studies was pooled using MetaXL software. The pooled prevalence of spectacle non-tolerance was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.7) ranging from 1.6% to 3.0%. The papers were also reviewed to identify the potential causes of non-tolerances. Nearly half reported that non-tolerance (47.4%) was due to an error in refraction. Other causes identified were errors related to communication (16.3%), dispensing (13.5%), non-adaptation (9.7%), data entry (8.7%), binocular vision (7.4%) and ocular pathology (6.4%).

SUMMARY

This review improves our understanding of spectacle non-tolerance in clinical practice. This is important because non-tolerance may lead to spectacle wear discontinuation, which may deprive patients of optimal vision. Increased non-tolerance in clinical practice may affect a clinician's reputation and incur additional costs associated with reassessments and replacements. Spectacle non-tolerance occurred due to a multitude of factors related to optical dispensing and wearer adaptation. Therefore, there is a need for vigilance while prescribing spectacles. The limited evidence highlights the need for more studies, especially in limited-resource settings, to improve the quality of refractive error services.

The Glenn A. Fry award lecture 2013: blurred vision, spectacle correction, and falls in older adults

This article reviews the literature on how blurred vision contributes to falls, gait, and postural control and discusses how these are influenced by spectacle correction. Falls are common and represent a very serious health risk for older people. They are not random events as studies have shown that falls are linked to a range of intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors. Vision provides a significant input to postural control in addition to providing information about the size and position of hazards and obstacles in the travel pathway and allows us to safely negotiate steps and stairs. Many studies have shown that reduced vision is a significant risk factor for falls. However, randomized controlled trials of optometric interventions and cataract surgery have not shown the expected reduction in falls rate, which may be due to magnification changes (and thus vestibulo-ocular reflex gain) in those participants who have large changes in refractive correction. Epidemiological studies have also shown that progressive addition lens and bifocal wearers are twice as likely to fall as non-multifocal wearers, laboratory-based studies have shown safer adaptive gait with single-vision glasses than progressive addition lenses or bifocals, and a randomized controlled trial has shown that an additional pair of distance vision single-vision glasses for outdoor use can reduce falls rate. Clinical recommendations to help optometrists prevent their frail, older patients from falling are suggested.

The visual and functional impacts of astigmatism and its clinical management

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive overview of research examining the impact of astigmatism on clinical and functional measures of vision, the short and longer term adaptations to astigmatism that occur in the visual system, and the currently available clinical options for the management of patients with astigmatism.

RECENT FINDINGS

The presence of astigmatism can lead to substantial reductions in visual performance in a variety of clinical vision measures and functional visual tasks. Recent evidence demonstrates that astigmatic blur results in short-term adaptations in the visual system that appear to reduce the perceived impact of astigmatism on vision. In the longer term, uncorrected astigmatism in childhood can also significantly impact on visual development, resulting in amblyopia. Astigmatism is also associated with the development of spherical refractive errors. Although the clinical correction of small magnitudes of astigmatism is relatively straightforward, the precise, reliable correction of astigmatism (particularly high astigmatism) can be challenging. A wide variety of refractive corrections are now available for the patient with astigmatism, including spectacle, contact lens and surgical options.

CONCLUSION

Astigmatism is one of the most common refractive errors managed in clinical ophthalmic practice. The significant visual and functional impacts of astigmatism emphasise the importance of its reliable clinical management. With continued improvements in ocular measurement techniques and developments in a range of different refractive correction technologies, the future promises the potential for more precise and comprehensive correction options for astigmatic patients.

Effects of induced astigmatism on foot placement strategies when stepping onto a raised surface

PURPOSE

Large changes in spectacle prescription can increase falls risk in older people. We investigated the effect of induced astigmatism (a common cause of distorted or blurred vision in older people) on locomotor stepping patterns to determine whether the orientation of astigmatic changes could have differential effects on gait safety when negotiating steps and stairs.

METHODS

10 older adults (mean age 76.0±6.4 years) walked up to and stepped onto a raised block whilst wearing their spectacle prescription and when blurred with ±3.00D cylinders at axes 45°, 90°, 135° and 180°. Gait measurements included foot placement before the block, toe clearance over the block edge and foot placement on the block.

RESULTS

Induced astigmatism with axes at 90°, providing magnification in the horizontal meridian only, caused no change in stepping pattern. Induced astigmatism with axes at 180° caused foot placement changes in the anterior or posterior direction according to whether magnification was positive or negative in the vertical meridian (block perceived higher or lower respectively). Induced astigmatism with axes oblique at 45° and 135° (causing the block to be perceived as a parallelogram sloping downwards either to the right or left) caused gait changes in the anterior and posterior, vertical and lateral directions. Changes in lateral foot placement appeared to be an attempt to maintain constant foot clearance levels over the block edge by stepping over the perceived 'lower' side of the 'sloping' block.

CONCLUSIONS

Astigmatic changes with oblique axes had the greatest effect on gait. Clinicians, including optometrists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and nurses should counsel older patients about the effects of astigmatism on gait safety. Furthermore, partial prescribing of astigmatic corrections should be considered to reduce the risk of falling.