4.5 Article

Contact lens user profile, attitudes and level of compliance to lens care

Journal

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 183-188

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2010.02.002

Keywords

Contact lens; Compliance; Demographics; Attitude to lens care; Internet purchase

Categories

Funding

  1. Alcon Laboratories Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To identify the demographics profile of lens wearers, and to evaluate the scope and level of noncompliant, behaviours in lens wearers. Methods: 210 contact lens wearers who attended an optometry clinic at an education and research institute, were surveyed using a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed to gather information regarding contact lens wearer demographics, contact lens hygiene behaviours and, attitudes toward lens care. Multivariate testing between lens wearers' demographic, hygiene, behaviours and attitude to aftercare visit were analysed. Results: One hundred and eleven (62%) of participants responded, with a mean age of 33.8 +/- 12 years. 55% of the respondents were female. Major non-compliance aspects identified were poor hand hygiene (11%), inadequate cleaning of lenses (13%) and lens storage cases (61%), and wearers not remembering how often they were advised to return for an aftercare (50%). Lens wearers who purchased contact lenses, from the internet were 3.8 times more likely to forget their aftercare schedule than those who purchased contact lenses from the optometrists (95% CI = 1.2-12.2, p = 0.024). Conclusion: Poor hand hygiene, inadequate lens care, and not remembering when to come back for after-cares are the common non-compliant behaviours in lens wearers. Purchase of lenses via the internet was associated with lack of awareness of aftercare visit. (C) 2010 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available