Search

Introduction: Contact lens (CL) practice is an ever-changing field with clinical knowledge, techniques and equipment continuously evolving. These new developments are backed with clinical trials and research to ensure that practitioners feel confident that there is an evidence base to support these advances. Evidence-based practice is now a crucial part of CL practice, and its importance also filters down to CL education. For example, lectures are one of the most popular tools for an educator but, is standing at the front of a lecture theatre full of students a more effective way of teaching than providing the same material for students to read by themselves? What evidence exists specific to CL education? Method: An expert panel of educators completed a comprehensive literature review of current evidence of teaching methods in CL training, or if not available then what can be learnt from other health care professional training that could be potentially applicable to CL education. Results: Due to the amount of evidence available in the overall subject area relating to healthcare education, the initial plan of compiling evidence into one narrative review paper was discarded in favour of producing two linked papers. Here, the first paper details definitions of terminology, and also teaching methods. The second paper focuses on assessment and specific clinical training required to attain CL practice competency. In this first paper, no direct evidence of the spreading and benefit of new education strategies evidence such as flipped classrooms, spaced learning, test-enhanced learning, group work, CBL, PBL, TBL, and reflective practice in CL education was found. The only technique that was widely used in the CL field was case reports and the group discussion of them. Nevertheless, the authors found a consensus of opinion from other disciplines that are transferable to CL teaching and could help students meet the intended learning outcomes. Conclusion: There is a small amount of evidence supporting CL education, but most of this seems to be related to the practical element of the training. However, there is a lot of evidence in the field of healthcare education from related disciplines which provides additional but important learning tools that may be effectively implemented in CL education.

Introduction: Evidence based practice is now an important part of healthcare education. The aim of this narrative literature review was to determine what evidence exists on the efficacy of commonly used teaching and learning and assessment methods in the realm of contact lens skills education (CLE) in order to provide insights into best practice. A summary of the global regulation and provision of postgraduate learning and continuing professional development in CLE is included. Method: An expert panel of educators was recruited and completed a literature review of current evidence of teaching and learning and assessment methods in healthcare training, with an emphasis on health care, general optometry and CLE. Results: No direct evidence of benefit of teaching and learning and assessment methods in CLE were found. There was evidence for the benefit of some teaching and learning and assessment methods in other disciplines that could be transferable to CLE and could help students meet the intended learning outcomes. There was evidence that the following teaching and learning methods helped health-care and general optometry students meet the intended learning outcomes; clinical teaching and learning, flipped classrooms, clinical skills videos and clerkships. For assessment these methods were; essays, case presentations, objective structured clinical examinations, self-assessment and formative assessment. There was no evidence that the following teaching and learning methods helped health-care and general optometry students meet the intended learning outcomes; journal clubs and case discussions. Nor was any evidence found for the following assessment methods; multiple-choice questions, oral examinations, objective structured practical examinations, holistic assessment, and summative assessment. Conclusion: Investigation into the efficacy of common teaching and learning and assessment methods in CLE are required and would be beneficial for the entire community of contact lens educators, and other disciplines that wish to adapt this approach of evidence-based teaching.

Purpose: To translate and validate an Italian version of the CLDEQ-8 (CLDEQ-8_IT). Methods: The study was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, a cross-cultural adaptation of CLDEQ-8 to Italian was performed by forward and backward translation in sequence. In the second phase, a multi-centre study was conducted for the validation of the questionnaire. Validity CLDEQ-8_IT was evaluated against three gestalt questions: overall opinion of soft contact lenses (CLs), global self-assessments of eye sensitivity and eye dryness. Reliability was evaluated by test–retest assessment in a subgroup of subjects. Finally, the psychometric properties of CLDEQ-8_IT were explored by Rasch analysis. Results: Two hundred and forty soft CL wearers, fluent Italian speakers (73 males and 167 females), between 18 and 70 years of age were enrolled. A significant correlation was found between CLDEQ-8_IT and each of the three Gestalt questions. The cutoff score of 12 points demonstrated the best balance between sensitivity and specificity in differentiating wearers grading their CLs as “Excellent/Very good” from those reporting their overall opinion as “Good/Fair/Poor”. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient between test and retest was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81–0.92). Finally, infit and outfit statistics using Rasch analysis for the 8 items were in a good range, however Principal Components Analysis revealed a certain degree of multi-dimensionality of the instrument. Also, item 8 analysis could be computed after merging the last two response categories. Conclusion: The CLDEQ-8_IT showed very good validity and reliability in measuring symptoms of CL wearers, comparable to the original English language version. A cut-off of 12 was confirmed as yielding the best balance between sensitivity and specificity in detecting CL wearers who could benefit from clinical management of their CL-related symptoms. Collapsing of the response options 5 and 6 in the last item of questionnaire could optimise its functioning.

Purpose: This study aimed to translate the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) into the Italian language and assess psychometric properties of the translated questionnaire (CISS_I). Methods: The CISS_I was arranged according to guidelines for a comprehensive multistep methodologic process for translating, adapting, and validating psychometric instruments in health care research. The CISS_I questionnaire was administered to 103 volunteers (21.8 ± 2.2 years), students in higher education, at two different times. A complete optometric evaluation was performed including subjective refraction, best corrected visual acuity, near point of convergence, prism fusional ranges to blur, diplopia and recovery, TNO stereo test and prism cover test for measurement of heterophoria. Results: The performance of the CISS_I in terms of validity showed some points of weakness. Sensitivity was 42%, specificity was 74%, positive predictive value was 27% and negative predictive value was 85%. The area under the ROC curve was 0.672. On the contrary, the results showed good internal consistency of the CISS_I (Cronbach's alpha - α=0.89) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.92). Rasch analysis showed good model fit (all items, except one, with infit and outfit mean square between 0.7 and 1.3), good measurement precision (person separation = 2.66) and good targeting –0,81 logits but also some evidence of multidimensionality. Conclusions: The CISS_I showed some point of weakness in terms of validity but also good psychometric properties and has been shown to be applicable to an Italian speaking population to quantify the visual discomfort associated with near vision in higher education students. The results show that high CISS_I score is not necessarily linked to convergence insufficiency, while low scores can exclude the presence of this anomaly. The CISS_I can help in interpreting and monitoring convergence insufficiency symptoms in already identified subjects, but it is not suitable for screening a general population of young adults.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the key factors behind successful and unsuccessful wear of contact lenses (CLs) for patients with presbyopia. METHOD: A multicenter survey was conducted using a questionnaire, in eight CL centers, among two groups of presbyopes: successful wearers (SWs), who were presbyopic and wearing CLs successfully, and unsuccessful wearers (UWs), who tried unsuccessfully to wear CLs to manage their presbyopia and had stopped wearing CLs. RESULTS: A total of 237 completed questionnaires were returned; 178 from SWs and 59 from UWs. Successful wearers used CLs 5.8±1.5 days a week and additional reading spectacles were never used by half of the SWs. Among SWs, the most important reason to continue wearing CLs was convenience (61%), whereas among UWs, the most important reason to discontinue wearing CLs was poor vision (80%). A logistic regression analysis showed that the absence of astigmatism (P

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability (inter and intra-observer) of a method to assess multifocal contact lenses (MCLs) centration using a corneal topography unit. Method: Daily-disposable MCLs (Fusion 1 day Presbyo) were fitted on both eyes of the subjects. For each lens fit a slit lamp digital picture and videokeratograph image were taken in a rapid but randomised sequence. Photo-editing software was used to assess the position of the MCL centre with respect to pupil centre as taken from the slit lamp photograph. The position of the MCL centre was automatically detected as the point of maximum curvature from the videokeratography. Three further manual and qualitative procedures to detect MCL centre, comparing a template of CLs optic zones to the videokeratographic image were performed by 4 practitioners using 3 different algorithms to represent the topographic map. Each manual reading was repeated 3 times. Results: Twenty-two subjects (11 males) aged 22.8 ± 1.9 years (range 20.8–27.0 years) were recruited. The accuracy of the 4 topographic assessments in determining the centre coordinates of the MCL with respect to SL assessment was good: no differences were found in the left eyes and although in the right eyes a more temporal and superior position of MCLs was determined (paired t-test, p < 0.05) the difference was clinically negligible (0.16 ± 0.36 mm horizontally, 0.23 ± 0.48 vertically). Amongst the 4 practitioners one-way Anova for repeated measures showed no differences for any of the 3 manual assessments. Intra-class correlation coefficient was calculated among the 3 readings for each manual procedure and was very good (between 0.75 and 0.98) in 3 practitioners and moderate (between 0.49 and 0.92) in the fourth. Conclusions: The assessment of MCL centration by performing corneal topography over the MCL is an accurate method. Furthermore, inter and intra-practitioner reliability showed by manual procedures appeared very good.

Monovision can be used as a method to correct presbyopia with contact lenses (CL) but its effect on reading behavior is still poorly understood. In this study eye movements (EM) were recorded in fifteen presbyopic participants, naïve to monovision, whilst they read arrays of words, non-words, and text passages to assess whether monovision affected their reading. Three conditions were compared, using daily disposable CLs: baseline (near correction in both eyes), conventional monovision (distance correction in the dominant eye, near correction in the non-dominant eye), and crossed monovision (the reversal of conventional monovision). Behavioral measures (reading speed and accuracy) and EM parameters (single fixation duration, number of fixations, dwell time per item, percentage of regressions, and percentage of skipped items) were analyzed. When reading passages, no differences in behavioral and EM measures were seen in any comparison of the three conditions. The number of fixations and dwell time significantly increased for both monovision and crossed monovision with respect to baseline only with word and non-word arrays. It appears that monovision did not appreciably alter visual processing when reading meaningful texts but some limited stress of the EM pattern was observed only with arrays of unrelated or meaningless items under monovision, which require the reader to have more in-depth controlled visual processing.

PurposeTo validate the Near Activity Vision Questionnaire (NAVQ) in Italian to allow the assessment of presbyopia corrections in Italian-speaking patients.MethodsAn Italian version of the NAVQ was arranged through several steps: an initial forward translation (from English to Italian), a backward translation (from Italian to English), and finally a consensual version to check against the original NAVQ. This prospective study enrolled native Italian-speaking presbyopic patients with corrected distance visual acuity of 0.20 logMAR or better in each eye and free of ocular anomalies. Six different groups of patients were asked to complete the questionnaire: emerging presbyopic patients, reading spectacle users, multifocal spectacle users, multifocal contact lens (CL) wearers, monovision CL wearers, and monofocal intraocular lens patients. Subjects were asked to answer the questionnaire again 2 weeks after the first completion.ResultsA total of 207 subjects completed the questionnaire. Data analysis showed good internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.93) and factorial validity with only one factor explaining 62.0% of the variance. Test-retest reliability was extremely good (ICC = 0.92) as well as discriminatory power of the questionnaire's ability to discriminate between subjects with different forms of presbyopic correction.ConclusionsThe Italian version of the NAVQ matches the properties of the original English version. It is a valid instrument to evaluate near activity visual quality of presbyopic Italian speakers.

Purpose: To evaluate, in an amateur sports-playing population, the prevalence of refractive error, the type of vision correction used during sport and attitudes toward different kinds of vision correction used in various types of sports. Method: A questionnaire was used for people engaging in sport and data was collected from sport centres, gyms and universities that focused on the motor sciences. Results: One thousand, five hundred and seventy-three questionnaires were collected (mean age 26.5 ± 12.9 years; 63.5 per cent male). Nearly all (93.8 per cent) subjects stated that their vision had been checked at least once. Fifty-three subjects (3.4 per cent) had undergone refractive surgery. Of the remainder who did not have refractive surgery (n = 1,519), 580 (38.2 per cent) reported a defect of vision, 474 (31.2 per cent) were myopic, 63 (4.1 per cent) hyperopic and 241 (15.9 per cent) astigmatic. Logistic regression analysis showed that the best predictors for myopia prevalence were gender (p < 0.001) and location of sport practice (p < 0.001). Sports that present higher prevalence of outdoor activity have lower prevalence of myopia. Contact lens penetration over the study sample was 18.7 per cent. Contact lenses were the favourite system of correction among people interviewed compared to spectacles and refractive surgery (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study showed that sport was not associated with different levels of myopia prevalence in the adult population. However, subjects engaging in outdoor sports had lower rates of myopia prevalence. Penetration of contact lens use in sport was four times higher than the overall adult population. Contact lenses were the preferred system of correction in sports compared to spectacles or refractive surgery, but this preference was affected by the type of sport practised and by the age and level of sports activity for which the preference was required.