Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice

PURPOSE: Myopia is a global public health issue; however, no information exists as to how potential myopia retardation strategies are being adopted globally. METHODS: A self-administrated, internet-based questionnaire was distributed in six languages, through professional bodies to eye care practitioners globally. The questions examined: awareness of increasing myopia prevalence, perceived efficacy and adoption of available strategies, and reasons for not adopting specific strategies. RESULTS: Of the 971 respondents, concern was higher (median 9/10) in Asia than in any other continent (7/10, p<0.001) and they considered themselves more active in implementing myopia control strategies (8/10) than Australasia and Europe (7/10), with North (4/10) and South America (5/10) being least proactive (p<0.001). Orthokeratology was perceived to be the most effective method of myopia control, followed by increased time outdoors and pharmaceutical approaches, with under-correction and single vision spectacles felt to be the least effective (p<0.05). Although significant intra-regional differences existed, overall most practitioners 67.5 (±37.8)% prescribed single vision spectacles or contact lenses as the primary mode of correction for myopic patients. The main justifications for their reluctance to prescribe alternatives to single vision refractive corrections were increased cost (35.6%), inadequate information (33.3%) and the unpredictability of outcomes (28.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of practitioners' awareness of the efficacy of myopia control techniques, the vast majority still prescribe single vision interventions to young myopes. In view of the increasing prevalence of myopia and existing evidence for interventions to slow myopia progression, clear guidelines for myopia management need to be established.

What is the current practice of medicines reconciliation in children nationally in the UK?

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence/National Patient Safety Agency (NICE/NPSA) guidelines for medicines reconciliation (MR) on admission to hospital in adult inpatients were introduced in 2007, but they excluded children less than 16 years of age. METHOD: We conducted a survey of 98 paediatric pharmacists (each from a different hospital) to find out what the current practice of MR in children is in the UK. KEY FINDINGS: Responses showed that 67% (43/64) of pharmacists surveyed carried out MR in all children at admission and only a third 34% (22/64) had policies for MR in children. Of the respondents who did not carry out MR in all children, 80% (4/5) responded that they did so in selected children. Pharmacists considered themselves the most appropriate profession for carrying out MR. When asked whether the NICE guidance should be expanded to include children, 98% (54/55) of the respondents answered 'yes'. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the findings suggest that MR is being conducted inconsistently in children and most paediatric pharmacists would like national guidance to be expanded to include children.