Compliance to spectacle use in children with refractive errors- a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Children
Compliance
Refractive error
Spectacles
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Feb 2020
24 Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
16
10
2019
accepted:
17
02
2020
entrez:
26
2
2020
pubmed:
26
2
2020
medline:
21
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Primary objective of this review was to measure compliance with spectacle use in children with refractive errors. Secondary objective was to understand the reasons for non-compliance. The databases searched were Ovid, EMBASE, CINAHL and Pubmed. All studies up to March, 2018 were included. The search terms were- ((((((Compliance [Title/Abstract]) OR Adherence [Title/Abstract]) OR Compliant [Title/Abstract]) OR Adherent [Title/Abstract])) AND (((Spectacle [Title/Abstract]) OR Spectacles [Title/Abstract]) OR Eye Glasses [Title/Abstract])) AND ((((Child [Title/Abstract]) OR Children [Title/Abstract]) OR Adolescent [Title/Abstract]) OR Adolescents [Title/Abstract]). Two researchers independently searched the databases and initial screening obtained 33 articles. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting and writing the systematic review. Two reviewers assessed data quality independently using the Quality Assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO). Poor quality studies were those, which had a score of less than 33% on the QATSO tool. Sensitivity analysis was done to determine if poor quality studies effected compliance. Galbraith plot was used to investigate statistical heterogeneity amongst studies. A random effects model was used to pool compliance. Twenty-three studies were included in the review, of which 20 were included in the quantitative analysis. All the studies were cross sectional. The overall compliance with spectacle use was 40.14% (95% CI- 32.78-47.50). The compliance varied from 9.84% (95% CI = 2.36-17.31) to 78.57% (95% CI = 68.96-88.18). The compliance derived in sensitivity analysis was 40.09%. Reasons for non-compliance were broken/lost spectacles, forgetfulness, and parental disapproval. Appropriate remedial measures such as health education and strengthening vision care services will be required to address poor compliance with spectacle use among children.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Primary objective of this review was to measure compliance with spectacle use in children with refractive errors. Secondary objective was to understand the reasons for non-compliance.
METHODS
METHODS
The databases searched were Ovid, EMBASE, CINAHL and Pubmed. All studies up to March, 2018 were included. The search terms were- ((((((Compliance [Title/Abstract]) OR Adherence [Title/Abstract]) OR Compliant [Title/Abstract]) OR Adherent [Title/Abstract])) AND (((Spectacle [Title/Abstract]) OR Spectacles [Title/Abstract]) OR Eye Glasses [Title/Abstract])) AND ((((Child [Title/Abstract]) OR Children [Title/Abstract]) OR Adolescent [Title/Abstract]) OR Adolescents [Title/Abstract]). Two researchers independently searched the databases and initial screening obtained 33 articles. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting and writing the systematic review. Two reviewers assessed data quality independently using the Quality Assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO). Poor quality studies were those, which had a score of less than 33% on the QATSO tool. Sensitivity analysis was done to determine if poor quality studies effected compliance. Galbraith plot was used to investigate statistical heterogeneity amongst studies. A random effects model was used to pool compliance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included in the review, of which 20 were included in the quantitative analysis. All the studies were cross sectional. The overall compliance with spectacle use was 40.14% (95% CI- 32.78-47.50). The compliance varied from 9.84% (95% CI = 2.36-17.31) to 78.57% (95% CI = 68.96-88.18). The compliance derived in sensitivity analysis was 40.09%. Reasons for non-compliance were broken/lost spectacles, forgetfulness, and parental disapproval.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Appropriate remedial measures such as health education and strengthening vision care services will be required to address poor compliance with spectacle use among children.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32093669
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01345-9
pii: 10.1186/s12886-020-01345-9
pmc: PMC7038539
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
71Références
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007 Nov 01;8:105
pubmed: 17976240
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008 Nov 17;5:23
pubmed: 19014686
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Bull World Health Organ. 2008 Jan;86(1):63-70
pubmed: 18235892
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Oct 1;90(10):728-38
pubmed: 23109740
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Mar;47(3):925-8
pubmed: 16505025
Optom Vis Sci. 2012 Jan;89(1):19-26
pubmed: 22001776
Ophthalmology. 2016 May;123(5):1036-42
pubmed: 26875007
Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2013 Nov;7(3):291-9
pubmed: 24533022
Eye (Lond). 1998;12 ( Pt 2):173-8
pubmed: 9683933
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
J Sci Res Med Sci. 2002 Apr;4(1-2):39-43
pubmed: 24019725
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013 Jan-Feb;61(1):8-12
pubmed: 23275214
Arch Ophthalmol. 2010 Oct;128(10):1328-34
pubmed: 20938003
Fam Pract. 2013 Jun;30(3):256-65
pubmed: 23363539
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2019 Apr;26(2):109-116
pubmed: 30299188
Optom Vis Sci. 2017 May;94(5):582-587
pubmed: 28406857
J AAPOS. 2012 Dec;16(6):501-7
pubmed: 23237744
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;21(6):362-9
pubmed: 25356984
Arch Ophthalmol. 2010 Jun;128(6):759-65
pubmed: 20547954
Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Jun;87(6):431-7
pubmed: 19565121
Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 Dec;126(12):1717-23
pubmed: 19064854
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008 Nov-Dec;15(6):410-7
pubmed: 19065434
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Dec;5(12):e1221-e1234
pubmed: 29032195