Frequent Evaluation To Improve Compliance In Patients Treated With Occlusion For Amblyopia: A Randomized controlled Trial.

Hernan Iturriaga, Mario Zanolli, Constanza Damm, Jorge Oporto, Olga Acuna, Felipe Valenzuela
{"title":"Frequent Evaluation To Improve Compliance In Patients Treated With Occlusion For Amblyopia: A Randomized controlled Trial.","authors":"Hernan Iturriaga,&nbsp;Mario Zanolli,&nbsp;Constanza Damm,&nbsp;Jorge Oporto,&nbsp;Olga Acuna,&nbsp;Felipe Valenzuela","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefits of occlusion treatment for amblyopia are well established.True compliance can be difficult to assess and is usually based on patient history. We hypothesize that more visits to the physician provides more chances to improve compliance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, comparative, blind trial in which 30 children with amblyopia were randomly assigned to be followed up more frequently (every 4 to 6 weeks) (study group) or as established on our standard regular basis (month intervals based on age in years) (control group). The primary outcome was to study differences in treatment compliance between these groups. The secondary outcome was to report compliance in a group of Chilean children and to compare survey results with adherence, to assess concordance between them.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the two groups. 30 patients were recruited. Mean compliance for all patients was 82%. Study group compliance was 83% versus 76% in control group (p = 0.5). Without epidemiology, intention to treat analysis (ITT), study group compliance was 97% compared to 76% in control group (p = 0.049). Pearson correlation between negative responses to a parental survey after treatment, of the percentage of adherence and compliance, was -0.57 and statistically significant (p = 0.013).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were no differences in patient compliance comparing more frequent evaluation versus a follow up evaluation based in an age according scheme. There is a high compliance to occlusion therapy in this group of Chilean children. If parents reported more negative adherence aspects in the survey, the worse the compliance.</p>","PeriodicalId":72356,"journal":{"name":"Binocular vision & strabology quarterly, Simms-Romano's","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Binocular vision & strabology quarterly, Simms-Romano's","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The benefits of occlusion treatment for amblyopia are well established.True compliance can be difficult to assess and is usually based on patient history. We hypothesize that more visits to the physician provides more chances to improve compliance.

Methods: We conducted a prospective, comparative, blind trial in which 30 children with amblyopia were randomly assigned to be followed up more frequently (every 4 to 6 weeks) (study group) or as established on our standard regular basis (month intervals based on age in years) (control group). The primary outcome was to study differences in treatment compliance between these groups. The secondary outcome was to report compliance in a group of Chilean children and to compare survey results with adherence, to assess concordance between them.

Results: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the two groups. 30 patients were recruited. Mean compliance for all patients was 82%. Study group compliance was 83% versus 76% in control group (p = 0.5). Without epidemiology, intention to treat analysis (ITT), study group compliance was 97% compared to 76% in control group (p = 0.049). Pearson correlation between negative responses to a parental survey after treatment, of the percentage of adherence and compliance, was -0.57 and statistically significant (p = 0.013).

Conclusions: There were no differences in patient compliance comparing more frequent evaluation versus a follow up evaluation based in an age according scheme. There is a high compliance to occlusion therapy in this group of Chilean children. If parents reported more negative adherence aspects in the survey, the worse the compliance.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项随机对照试验:频繁评估提高弱视患者闭塞治疗依从性。
背景:遮挡治疗弱视的益处已经得到了很好的证实。真正的依从性很难评估,通常基于患者的病史。我们假设,更多的医生访问提供更多的机会,以提高依从性。方法:我们进行了一项前瞻性、比较性、盲性试验,将30名弱视儿童随机分为两组,一组进行更频繁的随访(每4 - 6周)(研究组),另一组按照我们的标准定期随访(以年龄为单位的月间隔)(对照组)。主要结果是研究这些组之间治疗依从性的差异。次要结果是报告一组智利儿童的依从性,并将调查结果与依从性进行比较,以评估两者之间的一致性。结果:两组患者的基线临床特征相似。招募了30名患者。所有患者的平均依从性为82%。研究组依从性为83%,对照组为76% (p = 0.5)。在不进行流行病学、治疗意向分析(ITT)的情况下,研究组依从性为97%,对照组为76% (p = 0.049)。治疗后对家长调查的负面反应,依从性和依从性百分比的Pearson相关性为-0.57,具有统计学意义(p = 0.013)。结论:比较更频繁的评估与基于年龄的随访评估,患者依从性没有差异。这组智利儿童对闭塞治疗有很高的依从性。如果父母在调查中报告的消极依从性方面越多,依从性就越差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pediatric photoscreeners in high risk patients 2012: a comparison study of Plusoptix, Iscreen and SPOT. Near Point of Accommodation and Convergence after Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) for Myopia. Retinitis pigmentosa and granular dystrophy: a rare and unique combination in one patient. Effects of atropine on the accommodative system: parameters to consider in its use for penalization treatment of amblyopia. 3D Printing Live Stem Cells; Hobbit in 3D; Super "Retina Displya"; Your Microbiome; Hospitals Takeover; Income Taxes; Bicyclists; Deer Dangers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1