Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Determinants of the Frequency of Contact Lens Wear

Morgan, Philip B. Ph.D.; Efron, Nathan Ph.D., D.Sc.; Woods, Craig A. Ph.D.; The International Contact Lens Prescribing Survey Consortium

Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice: May 2013 - Volume 39 - Issue 3 - p 200–204
doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31827a7ad3
Article

Objectives: To characterize and discover the determinants of the frequency of wear (FOW) of contact lenses.

Methods: Survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in up to 40 countries between January and March every year for 5 consecutive years (2007–2011). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fits or refits performed after receiving the survey form. Only data for daily wear lens fits were analyzed.

Results: Data were collected in relation to 74,510 and 9,014 soft and rigid lens fits, respectively. Overall, FOW was 5.9±1.7 days per week (DPW). When considering the proportion of lenses worn between one to seven DPW, the distribution for rigid lenses is skewed toward full-time wear (7 DPW), whereas the distribution for soft daily disposable lenses is perhaps bimodal, with large and small peaks at seven and two DPW, respectively. There is a significant variation in FOW among nations (P<0.0001), ranging from 6.8±1.0 DPW in Greece to 5.1±2.5 DPW in Kuwait. For soft lenses, FOW increases with decreasing age. Females (6.0±1.6 DPW) wear lenses more frequently than males (5.8±1.7 DPW) (P=0.0002). FOW is greater among those wearing presbyopic corrections (6.1±1.4 DPW) compared with spherical (5.9±1.7 DPW) and toric (5.9±1.6 DPW) designs (P<0.0001). FOW with hydrogel peroxide systems (6.4±1.1 DPW) was greater than that with multipurpose systems (6.2±1.3 DPW) (P<0.0001).

Conclusions: Numerous demographic and contact lens–related factors impact FOW. There may be a future trend toward a lower FOW associated with the increasing popularity of daily disposable lenses.

Eurolens Research (P.B.M.), Faculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and School of Optometry and Vision Science (N.E.), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; School of Medicine (Optometry) (C.A.W.), Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Victoria, Australia.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Nathan Efron, Ph.D, D.Sc., Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia; e-mail: n.efron@qut.edu.au

This survey was funded by the sponsors of Eurolens Research at the University of Manchester: Bausch + Lomb Inc.; Ciba Vision (UK) Ltd.; CooperVision Ltd.; Johnson & Johnson Vision Care; Menicon Co. Ltd.; and Sauflon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Additional funding and/or assistance was provided for the following: Bulgaria, Israel, Romania, Slovenia, Hungary, Czech Republic – Johnson & Johnson Vision Care; Australia –Optometrists Association Australia; China – Ciba Vision Shanghai; Korea – Korean Optometric Association; Norway – Norwegian Association of Optometry; the Netherlands – Bausch + Lomb Benelux; Puerto Rico – Johnson & Johnson Vision Care and The Puerto Rico College of Optometrists; Spain – Spanish General Council of the Colleges of Opticians Optometrists; Sweden – Swedish Optometry Association and the Swedish Contact Lens Association.

Members of the International Contact Lens Prescribing Survey Consortium are listed in the Acknowledgment.

Accepted October 22, 2012

© 2013 Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc.