Background: Two types of progressive addition lenses (PALs) were compared in an office field study: 1. General purpose PALs with continuous clear vision between infinity and near reading distances and 2. Computer vision PALs with a wider zone of clear vision at the monitor and in near vision but no clear distance vision. Methods: Twenty-three presbyopic participants wore each type of lens for two weeks in a double-masked four-week quasi-experimental procedure that included an adaptation phase (Weeks 1 and 2) and a test phase (Weeks 3 and 4). Questionnaires on visual and musculoskeletal conditions as well as preferences regarding the type of lenses were administered. After eight more weeks of free use of the spectacles, the preferences were assessed again. The ergonomic conditions were analysed from photographs. Results: Head inclination when looking at the monitor was significantly lower by 2.3 degrees with the computer vision PALs than with the general purpose PALs. Vision at the monitor was judged significantly better with computer PALs, while distance vision was judged better with general purpose PALs; however, the reported advantage of computer vision PALs differed in extent between participants. Accordingly, 61 per cent of the participants preferred the computer vision PALs, when asked without information about lens design. After full information about lens characteristics and additional eight weeks of free spectacle use, 44 per cent preferred the computer vision PALs. Conclusion: On average, computer vision PALs were rated significantly better with respect to vision at the monitor during the experimental part of the study. In the final forced-choice ratings, approximately half of the participants preferred either the computer vision PAL or the general purpose PAL. Individual factors seem to play a role in this preference and in the rated advantage of computer vision PALs.
Purpose: This office field study investigated the effects of different types of spectacle lenses habitually worn by computer users with presbyopia and in the beginning stages of presbyopia. Computer vision syndrome was assessed through reported complaints and ergonomic conditions. Methods: A questionnaire regarding the type of habitually worn near-vision lenses at the workplace, visual conditions and the levels of different types of complaints was administered to 175 participants aged 35 years and older (mean ± SD: 52.0 ± 6.7 years). Statistical factor analysis identified five specific aspects of the complaints. Workplace conditions were analysed based on photographs taken in typical working conditions. Results: In the subgroup of 25 users between the ages of 36 and 57 years (mean 44 ± 5 years), who wore distance-vision lenses and performed more demanding occupational tasks, the reported extents of 'ocular strain', 'musculoskeletal strain' and 'headache' increased with the daily duration of computer work and explained up to 44 per cent of the variance (r s = 0.66). In the other subgroups, this effect was smaller, while in the complete sample (n = 175), this correlation was approximately rs = 0.2. The subgroup of 85 general-purpose progressive lens users (mean age 54 years) adopted head inclinations that were approximately seven degrees more elevated than those of the subgroups with single vision lenses. Conclusions: The present questionnaire was able to assess the complaints of computer users depending on the type of spectacle lenses worn. A missing near-vision addition among participants in the early stages of presbyopia was identified as a risk factor for complaints among those with longer daily durations of demanding computer work.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.