China's overuse of inpatient treatment and routine preoperative testing

Effect of atropine, orthokeratology and combined treatments for myopia control: a 2-year stratified randomised clinical trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the 2-year efficacy of atropine, orthokeratology (ortho-k) and combined treatment on myopia. To explore the factors influencing the efficacy.

METHODS

An age-stratified randomised controlled trial. Children (n=164) aged 8-12 years with spherical equivalent refraction of -1.00 to -6.00 D were stratified into two age subgroups and randomly assigned to receive placebo drops+spectacles (control), 0.01% atropine+spectacles (atropine), ortho-k+placebo (ortho-k) or combined treatment. Axial length was measured at baseline and visits at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The primary analysis was done following the criteria of intention to treat, which included all randomised subjects.

RESULTS

All interventions can significantly reduce axial elongation at all visits (all p<0.05). Overall, the 2-year axial elongation was significantly reduced in combined treatment than in monotherapies (all p<0.05). After stratification by age, in the subgroup aged 8-10, the difference between combined treatment and ortho-k became insignificant (p=0.106), while in the subgroup aged 10-12, the difference between combined treatment and atropine became insignificant (p=0.121). A significant age-dependent effect existed in the ortho-k group versus the control group (p for interaction=0.013), and a significant age-dependent effect existed in the ortho-k group versus the atropine group (p for interaction=0.035), which indicated that ortho-k can achieve better efficacy in younger children.

CONCLUSIONS

Atropine combined with ortho-k treatment can improve the efficacy of myopia control compared with monotherapy in children aged 8-12. Younger children might benefit more from ortho-k.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1800015541.

Ethical issues with geographical variations in the provision of health care services

Geographical variations are documented for a wide range of health care services. As many such variations cannot be explained by demographical or epidemiological differences, they are problematic with respect to distributive justice, quality of care, and health policy. Despite much attention, geographical variations prevail. One reason for this can be that the ethical issues of geographical variations are rarely addressed explicitly. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to analyse the ethical aspects of geographical variations in the provision of health services. Applying a principlist approach the article identifies and addresses four specific ethical issues: injustice, harm, lack of beneficence, and paternalism. Then it investigates the normative leap from the description of geographical variations to the prescription of right care. Lastly, the article argues that professional approaches such as developing guidelines, checklists, appropriateness criteria, and standards of care are important measures when addressing geographical variations, but that such efforts should be accompanied and supported by ethical analysis. Hence, geographical variations are not only a healthcare provision, management, or a policy making problem, but an ethical one. Addressing the ethical issues with geographical variations is key for handling this crucial problem in the provision of health services.