Strategies and attitudes on the management of myopia in clinical practice in Spain

An Insight into Knowledge, Perspective, and Practices of Indian Optometrists towards Childhood Myopia

The current understanding of clinical approaches and barriers in managing childhood myopia among Indian optometrists is limited. This research underscores the necessity and relevance of evidence-based practice guidelines by exploring their knowledge, attitude, and practice towards childhood myopia. A self-administered internet-based 26-item survey was circulated online among practicing optometrists in India. The questions assessed the demographics, knowledge, self-reported clinical practice behavior, barriers, source of information guiding their management, and extent of adult caregiver engagement for childhood myopia. Of 393 responses, a significant proportion of respondents (32.6-92.4%) were unaware of the ocular complications associated with high myopia, with less than half (46.5%) routinely performing ocular biometry in clinical practice. Despite the growing awareness of emerging myopia management options, the uptake remains generally poor, with single-vision distance full-correction spectacles (70.3%) being the most common mode of vision correction. Barriers to adopting optimal myopia care are medicolegal concerns, absence of clinical practice guidelines, and inadequate consultation time. Own clinical experience and original research articles were the primary sources of information supporting clinical practice. Most (>70%) respondents considered involving the adult caregiver in their child's clinical decision-making process. While practitioners' awareness and activity of newer myopia management strategies are improving, there is plenty of scope for its enhancement. The importance of evidence-based practice guidelines and continuing education on myopia control might help practitioners enhance their clinical decision-making skills.

2022 Glenn A. Fry Award lecture: Enhancing clinical assessment for improved ophthalmic management

ABSTRACT

Detailed clinical assessment is critical to allow sensitive evaluation of the eye and its management. As technology advances, these assessment techniques can be adapted and refined to improve the detection of pathological changes of ocular tissue and their impact on visual function. Enhancements in optical medical devices including spectacle, contact, and intraocular lenses have allowed for a better understanding of the mechanism and amelioration of presbyopia and myopia control. Advancements in imaging technology have enabled improved quantification of the tear film and ocular surface, informing diagnosis and treatment strategies. Miniaturized electronics, large processing power, and in-built sensors in smartphones and tablets capacitate more portable assessment tools for clinicians, facilitate self-monitoring and treatment compliance, and aid communication with patients. This article gives an overview of how technology has been used in many areas of eye care to improve assessments and treatment and provides a snapshot of some of my studies validating and using technology to inform better evidence-based patient management.

Strategies and attitudes on the management of myopia in clinical practice in Spain - 2022 update

OBJECTIVE

This study analyses strategies and attitudes on myopia management reported by eye care practitioners (ECP) from Spain in 2022.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to ECPs worldwide via the internet through professional associations. The questionnaire was distributed by email to all registered Spanish optician-optometrists. Questions examined awareness of increasing myopia prevalence; perceived efficacy; uptake of available approaches; and reasons preventing further uptake of specific approaches.

RESULTS

Of 3,107 practitioners who participated in the study, 380 were Spanish ECPs. Using a 10-point scale, Spanish practitioners reported less concern about increasing pediatric myopia (8.3 ± 1.6) compared to ECP's worldwide (8.5 ± 1.9) (p < 0.001), but similar level of clinical activity in myopia control (7.8 ± 2.3 vs. 7.5 ± 2.5, respectively) (p > 0.05); however, around half of all prescribed treatments were single-vision distance spectacles/contact lenses both in Spain and in most regions, with Spanish practitioners prescribing less single-vision spectacles than African and Asian (p < 0.001), but more than Australasian practitioners (p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between Spain and the other regions in the perceived efficacy of combined therapy, orthokeratology, and outdoor time (p > 0.05), with the former being perceived as the most effective myopia control method followed by orthokeratology. No significant differences were found between Spain and the world's average in factors preventing the prescription of myopia control approaches (p > 0.05). Spanish practitioners reported that embracing myopia management has a positive, but lower impact on customer loyalty, practice revenue and job satisfaction compared with the other regions (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Myopia control is increasing, although around half of practitioners still prescribe single-vision distance spectacles/contact lenses to young/progressive myopes. Combined therapy followed by orthokeratology were perceived as the most effective treatments. Embracing myopia management improved patient loyalty and job satisfaction.

Attitudes and knowledge of myopia management by Spanish optometrists

PURPOSE

To investigate the knowledge, training and clinical practice of Spanish optometrists about preventing and controlling myopia progression.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire was distributed to Spanish optometrists through social networks, optometric professional bodies and one of the major Spanish optometrists' associations to assess practitioner perception, understanding, and self-reported clinical practice behavior related to myopia diagnosis and management.

RESULTS

A total of 534 optometrists with a mean age of 40.8 ± 10.3 years completed the survey. Most respondents have been practicing optometry for more than 20 years (89.8%), report having actively treated childhood myopia (82.4%), and are very concerned about the increasing frequency of pediatric myopia in their daily practice (85.3%). Almost all of the respondents (97.3%) agreed that the efficacy of treatment is related to the age at which it is prescribed, and more than half (53.6%) considered a progression higher than - 0.50 and up to - 1.00D as the minimum necessary to consider a myopia management option. Respondents who reported actively managing childhood myopia considered orthokeratology, atropine and soft-defocus contact lenses the most effective myopia control interventions. However, the most frequently prescribed form of myopia correction by Spanish optometrists was single-vision spectacles, followed by orthokeratology and soft-defocus contact lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

Spanish optometrists are very active in the management of myopia, especially by fitting orthokeratology lenses or dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control, but there is still potential for improvement in the methodology they follow for both the diagnosis and management of myopia.

Parental awareness of the implications of myopia and strategies to control its progression: A survey-based study

PURPOSE

Myopia has emerged as a significant public health concern. Effective methods have now been developed to delay its onset and progression. However, this information may not be reaching parents, and they are key players in terms of implementing the necessary preventive measures. This study investigated parental awareness of myopia, its implications and the strategies available for controlling it.

METHODS

A self-administered online survey was distributed to parents of children 6-16 years of age. To be eligible to respond, their child had to be myopic or at risk of developing myopia due to family history.

RESULTS

A total of 330 parents completed the survey, of which 321 were included for analysis. Sixty-seven percent of respondents had at least one myopic son/daughter, and most were between -1.00 and -1.75 D. Among parents of myopic children, 20.9% thought that their child's myopia progressed moderately. Sixty-seven percent of parents had a significant level of concern about the progression of the myopia and felt that it was caused mainly by the use of electronic devices and genetics. A generalised linear model showed that parental concern was significantly predicted by the perception of evolution (p < 0.001) and the number of known health-related consequences (p < 0.001). Almost 40% of parents were unaware of the existence of myopia control strategies. Relatives and eye care practitioners are the main sources of information. The most well-known myopia control strategy was myopia control soft contact lenses (29.2%), although the option that most parents would opt for was spectacles with peripheral defocus lenses (47.1%). The selection of a contact-lens-based myopia control method correlated significantly with the age of the children (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Society in general and parents in particular need more information about myopia, its consequences and the options available for its control. Eye care practitioners play an important role in this issue.

Myopia progression risk assessment score (MPRAS): a promising new tool for risk stratification

Timely identification of individuals "at-risk" for myopia progression is the leading requisite for myopia practice as it aids in the decision of appropriate management. This study aimed to develop 'myopia progression risk assessment score' (MPRAS) based on multiple risk factors (10) to determine whether a myope is "at-risk" or "low-risk" for myopia progression. Two risk-score models (model-1: non-weightage, model-2: weightage) were developed. Ability of MPRAS to diagnose individual "at-risk" for myopia progression was compared against decision of five clinicians in 149 myopes, aged 6-29 years. Using model-1 (no-weightage), further 7 sub-models were created with varying number of risk factors in decreasing step-wise manner (1a: 10 factors to 1g: 4 factors). In random eye analysis for model-1, the highest Youden's J-index (0.63-0.65) led to the MPRAS cut-off score of 41.50-43.50 for 5 clinicians with a sensitivity ranging from 78 to 85% and specificity ranging from 79 to 87%. For this cut-off score, the mean area under the curve (AUC) between clinicians and the MPRAS model ranged from 0.89 to 0.90. Model-2 (weighted for few risk-factors) provided similar sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Sub-model analysis revealed greater AUC with high sensitivity (89%) and specificity (94%) in model-1g that has 4 risk factors compared to other sub-models (1a-1f). All the MPRAS models showed good agreement with the clinician's decision in identifying individuals "at-risk" for myopia progression.