Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
Perceptions and Barriers to Accessing Myopia Management in the UK.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kearney Stephanie, Coverdale Sophie, Saunders Cheralynn, Day Mhairi, Rountree Lindsay, Webber Kathryn, Mallen Edward A H, Ghorbani-Mojarrad Neema
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Perceptions and barriers to myopia management (MM) in childhood have not been fully explored within some countries, including the UK, where there is minimal public health education on myopia.
METHODS: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to explore perceptions of myopia and MM interventions using focus groups and a survey to obtain qualitative and quantitative data. Topics included the understanding of myopia, perceptions of MM, considerations when initiating MM, lifestyle risk factors, and barriers to uptake of intervention.
RESULTS: Parent awareness and understanding of myopia and MM is limited. Many parents felt that they had not been provided with sufficient explicit advice about their child's diagnosis or treatment. Despite this, parents were aware of some of the protective lifestyle behaviours which may slow myopia progression. The common belief was that myopia can affect a child's quality of life. The most common reason that MM had been recommended to parents by practitioners was to reduce disease risk.
CONCLUSIONS: The cost and lack of public awareness that MM interventions are available were the main barriers to the uptake of MM. There is a need to improve practitioner communication of myopia and its management and, subsequently, improve the standard of children's eyecare.
METHODS: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to explore perceptions of myopia and MM interventions using focus groups and a survey to obtain qualitative and quantitative data. Topics included the understanding of myopia, perceptions of MM, considerations when initiating MM, lifestyle risk factors, and barriers to uptake of intervention.
RESULTS: Parent awareness and understanding of myopia and MM is limited. Many parents felt that they had not been provided with sufficient explicit advice about their child's diagnosis or treatment. Despite this, parents were aware of some of the protective lifestyle behaviours which may slow myopia progression. The common belief was that myopia can affect a child's quality of life. The most common reason that MM had been recommended to parents by practitioners was to reduce disease risk.
CONCLUSIONS: The cost and lack of public awareness that MM interventions are available were the main barriers to the uptake of MM. There is a need to improve practitioner communication of myopia and its management and, subsequently, improve the standard of children's eyecare.