Cargando…

Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms

AIM: To assess real-world adoption of presbyopic correction and its impact on quality of vision. METHOD: The use of visual corrections by 529 sequential patients (aged 36 years to 85 years, 50.4% female) attending 4 optometric practices in diverse areas across London were surveyed by interview and c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sivardeen, Ahmed, McAlinden, Colm, Wolffsohn, James S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951833/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30935816
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2018.12.004
_version_ 1783486345644081152
author Sivardeen, Ahmed
McAlinden, Colm
Wolffsohn, James S.
author_facet Sivardeen, Ahmed
McAlinden, Colm
Wolffsohn, James S.
author_sort Sivardeen, Ahmed
collection PubMed
description AIM: To assess real-world adoption of presbyopic correction and its impact on quality of vision. METHOD: The use of visual corrections by 529 sequential patients (aged 36 years to 85 years, 50.4% female) attending 4 optometric practices in diverse areas across London were surveyed by interview and completed the quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire to evaluate visual symptoms. RESULTS: Over half of the population (54.7%) managed without glasses at least some of the time, while between 30 and 40% wore distance, reading and progressive spectacles with those using Progressive Addition Lenses wearing them over 80% of the time, while those wearing reading spectacles only approximately 25% of the time. Age, sex and driving frequency had no effect of QoV (p > 0.05), whereas the distance of the task significantly impacted QoV (p < 0.01). In all QoV metrics, regardless of the far, intermediate or near blur assessment, QoV was rated higher by patients whose main tasks were far focused (n = 231, 43.9%), than those who principally conduct intermediate tasks (n = 165, 31.4%) and worse still for those whose main tasks were near (n = 130, 24.7%), regardless of the form of correction. CONCLUSION: Majority of tasks are in the distance and these had a higher QoV than intermediate tasks with near focused tasks being even worse. It is important to discuss with patients the principal distance of the tasks they generally perform and the forms of presbyopic correction used from the outset.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6951833
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69518332020-01-13 Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms Sivardeen, Ahmed McAlinden, Colm Wolffsohn, James S. J Optom Original article AIM: To assess real-world adoption of presbyopic correction and its impact on quality of vision. METHOD: The use of visual corrections by 529 sequential patients (aged 36 years to 85 years, 50.4% female) attending 4 optometric practices in diverse areas across London were surveyed by interview and completed the quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire to evaluate visual symptoms. RESULTS: Over half of the population (54.7%) managed without glasses at least some of the time, while between 30 and 40% wore distance, reading and progressive spectacles with those using Progressive Addition Lenses wearing them over 80% of the time, while those wearing reading spectacles only approximately 25% of the time. Age, sex and driving frequency had no effect of QoV (p > 0.05), whereas the distance of the task significantly impacted QoV (p < 0.01). In all QoV metrics, regardless of the far, intermediate or near blur assessment, QoV was rated higher by patients whose main tasks were far focused (n = 231, 43.9%), than those who principally conduct intermediate tasks (n = 165, 31.4%) and worse still for those whose main tasks were near (n = 130, 24.7%), regardless of the form of correction. CONCLUSION: Majority of tasks are in the distance and these had a higher QoV than intermediate tasks with near focused tasks being even worse. It is important to discuss with patients the principal distance of the tasks they generally perform and the forms of presbyopic correction used from the outset. Elsevier 2020 2019-03-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6951833/ /pubmed/30935816 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2018.12.004 Text en © 2019 Spanish General Council of Optometry. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original article
Sivardeen, Ahmed
McAlinden, Colm
Wolffsohn, James S.
Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms
title Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms
title_full Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms
title_fullStr Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms
title_full_unstemmed Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms
title_short Presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms
title_sort presbyopic correction use and its impact on quality of vision symptoms
topic Original article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951833/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30935816
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2018.12.004
work_keys_str_mv AT sivardeenahmed presbyopiccorrectionuseanditsimpactonqualityofvisionsymptoms
AT mcalindencolm presbyopiccorrectionuseanditsimpactonqualityofvisionsymptoms
AT wolffsohnjamess presbyopiccorrectionuseanditsimpactonqualityofvisionsymptoms