Barriers, motivators and enablers for dispensing multifocal contact lenses in Mumbai, India

Thite, Nilesh; Shah, Ukti; Mehta, Jasmin; Jurkus, Janice

doi:10.1016/j.optom.2014.12.002

Cited by 7 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies (70%) were quantitative (survey). 26,30,31,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39]41,[43][44][45][46]48,49,[51][52][53][54] Included studies investigated barriers and facilitators to a diverse range of eye care areas, most commonly including low vision (26.6%), 31,38,41,42,44,49,54,56 age-related macular degeneration (AMD) (23.3%), 33,34,40,45,50,52,55 and glaucoma (23.3%). 26,30,32,35,37,41,47 Quality assessment Figure 2 summarises the methodological quality assessment for the included studies.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Skills proficiency. Skills proficiency deficits was a barrier with issues noted in clinical, communication and other skills (e.g., research, business), 25,26,[32][33][34]36,37,39,40,42,47,50,51,[54][55][56] while other studies found that proficiency in those areas was a facilitator. 25,26,36,[49][50][51][52]55 The predominant skills proficiency deficit was clinical skills, which was reported for glaucoma, 26,32,37,47 AMD, 33,40,50 contact lens practice, 36,51 low vision, 54 paediatric 39 and evidence-based practice.…”

Section: Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Skills proficiency deficits was a barrier with issues noted in clinical, communication and other skills (e.g., research, business), 25,26,[32][33][34]36,37,39,40,42,47,50,51,[54][55][56] while other studies found that proficiency in those areas was a facilitator. 25,26,36,[49][50][51][52]55 The predominant skills proficiency deficit was clinical skills, which was reported for glaucoma, 26,32,37,47 AMD, 33,40,50 contact lens practice, 36,51 low vision, 54 paediatric 39 and evidence-based practice. 25 Issues with clinical skills proficiency encompassed difficulty of examination (paediatrics), 39 lack of proficiency with OCT acquisition and interpretation (glaucoma), 47 or a more general lack of expertise (AMD, low vision, glaucoma management and rigid gas permeable contact lens fitting).…”

Section: Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Optometrists' beliefs around patients, expected outcomes, litigation and perceived difficulties were reported as a barrier to delivering eye care. 18,25,31,32,[34][35][36]38,40,42,43,47,50,51,[54][55][56] Eye care areas where optometrists' beliefs were an issue were low vision, 38,42,54,56 AMD 34,40,50,55 and glaucoma. 32,35,47 For low vision, optometrists' beliefs about the benefit of low vision care 42,54,56 and of patients' acceptance of care were issues.…”

Section: Belief About Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of eye care by optometrists: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework

Toomey

Gyawali

Stapleton

et al. 2021

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Evidence-based practice is fundamental to providing quality care, patient satisfaction and judicious use of limited healthcare resources. However, variability in evidence-based eye care delivery has been reported. Given the important role of optometrists in delivering primary eye care, a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators to providing optometric care is required. This systematic review aimed to identify determinants (barriers and facilitators) of eye care delivery by optometrists and interventions that may improve eye care delivery. Recent findings: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsychINFO, ProQuest and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting barriers and facilitators to eye care delivery published between 1999 and 2020. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to analyse data (quotations, interpretive summaries, survey result) with barriers and facilitators coded to one or more of the 14 domains, and used to identify the key behavioural domains influencing eye care delivery based on frequency of coding, elaboration and stated importance in the study. Influential domains were mapped to the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify potential interventions to improve eye care delivery. Of the 802 studies retrieved from the search, 30 were included. Frequently identified barriers were time constraints, resources and equipment issues, patient factors, lack of awareness, skill proficiency deficits and negative attitudes and beliefs. Frequently identified facilitators were adequate time, resources and equipment, education, skill proficiency and understanding the relevancy of the eye care provided. The key TDF domains influencing eye care delivery were 'environmental context and resources' (time, resources, equipment issues, patient factors), 'knowledge' (awareness issues), 'skills' (skills proficiency) and 'belief about consequences' (beliefs and relevancy). Intervention functions that may improve eye care delivery were education, training, restriction, environmental restructuring, enablement, persuasion and modelling. Summary: The barriers and facilitators identified in this review were diverse and located at both the practitioner and organisational levels. Four TDF domains were found to be influential determinants of eye care practice. Intervention functions identified in this study can be used to improve the appropriateness of primary eye care delivery.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Belief About Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of eye care by optometrists: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework

Toomey

Gyawali

Stapleton

et al. 2021

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could be due the lack of awareness about lens fitting options in older patients. Thite and colleagueset al [14] investigated the barriers for dispensing multifocal contact lenses in India. The authors found that lack of patient awareness, cost, lack of trials and limited power range were the main barriers for fitting multifocal lenses.…”

Section: Lens Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends of contact lens prescribing in Jordan

Haddad

Bakkar

Gammoh

et al. 2016

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

⁎ Corresponding author. Abstract PurposeTo evaluate contact lens prescribing trends among optometrists in Jordan. MethodsOptometrists from 173 practices in Jordan were surveyed about prescribing contact lenses in their practice. Practitioners were required to record information for the last 10 patients that visited their practice. Demographic data such as age and gender was obtained for each patient. In addition, data relating to lens type, lens design, replacement methods and the care regime advised to each patient were recorded. Practitioners were required to provide information relating to their education and years of experience. The influence of education and experience with respect to lens prescribing trends was explored using linear regression models for the proportions of lens types fitted for patients. ResultsA total of 1730 contact lens fits were analyzed. The mean (±SD) age of lens wearers was 26.6 (±7.9) years, of whom 65% were female. Conventional hydrogel lenses were the most prescribed lenses, accounting for 60.3% of the fits, followed by silicone hydrogel lenses (31.3%), and rigid lenses (8.4%). In terms of lens design, spherical lenses appeared to be most commonly prescribed on monthly basis.Daily disposable lenses were second most prescribed lens modality, accounting for 20.4% of the study sample. Multi-purpose solution (MPS) was the preferred care regimen, with a prevalence of 88.1% reported in the study sample, compared to hydrogen peroxide (1-step and 2-step), which represented only 2.8% of the patients in this study. A relationship was established between the two educational groups for rigid lens prescribing (F = 17.4, p < 0.0001), while the experience of the optometrist was not a significant factor (F = 0.4, p = 0.54). ConclusionThis work has provides an up-to-date analysis of contact lens prescribing trends among optometrists in Jordan. Contact lens prescribing in terms of lens type, lens design, modality of wear and care regimen agree with global market trends with small variations. This report will help practitioners and the industry to detect any deficiencies in the contact lens market in Jordan, which will ease implementing current and future plans in developing contact lens practice and patient eye care in the region.

show abstract

Proactive contact lens prescribing – Which approach is more effective?

Thite¹,

Shinde

Sawant³

et al. 2018

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Barriers, motivators and enablers for dispensing multifocal contact lenses in Mumbai, India

Abstract: To enhance the MFCL practice, barriers like lack of awareness and limitations in power range must be addressed. Trial lens availability may motivate practitioners to prescribe MFCL. Further probing is required to understand lack of motivation among experienced practitioners.

Cited by 7 publications

References 12 publications

Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of eye care by optometrists: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework

Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of eye care by optometrists: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework

Trends of contact lens prescribing in Jordan

Proactive contact lens prescribing – Which approach is more effective?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About