Compliance with Contact Lens Replacement in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess eye care practitioners (ECPs) recommendations for replacement frequency (RF) of silicone hydrogel (SH) and daily disposable (DD) lenses in Canada and the U.S. and to compare noncompliance (NC) with manufacturer recommended RF by the ECP and patient, and the reasons given for NC. METHODS: Invitations to participate were sent by e-mail to ECPs in Canada and the U.S. Twenty patient surveys were sent to 420 ECPs, and 2232 eligible surveys were received from 216 ECPs (26% Canada, 74% U.S.). Questions related to patient demographics, lens type, wearing patterns, ECP instructions for RF, and actual patient RF. ECPs provided lens information and their recommendation for RF after the surveys were completed and sealed in envelopes. Responses were anonymous. RESULTS: DD accounted for 18% (Canada) vs. 16% (U.S.) of wearers (p > 0.05); 35% (Canada) vs. 45% (U.S.) wore 2-week replacement SH (2WR; p = 0.011); and 47% (Canada) vs. 39% (U.S.) wore 1-month replacement SH (1MR) lenses (p = 0.025). Thirty-four percent (Canada) vs. 18% (U.S.) of ECPs recommended longer RFs than the manufacturer recommended RF for 2WR lens wearers (p < 0.001); 6% (Canada) vs. 4% (U.S.) for DD wearers; and 2% (Canada) vs. 1% (U.S.) for 1MR lens wearers. NC rates for actual RFs reported by patients were not different between countries (p > 0.05) and were lowest for DD (13% Canada, 12% U.S.), followed by 1MR (33% Canada, 28% U.S.). The highest NC rates were with 2WR (50% Canada, 52% U.S.). The most frequent reason for NC with 2WR and 1MR was "forgetting which day to replace lenses" (54% Canada, 53% U.S.) and in DD wearers "to save money" (56% Canada, 29% U.S., p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: 1MR lenses are more frequently prescribed in Canada. ECPs in Canada were NC with 2WR lenses more frequently than U.S. ECPs, but patient NC rates were the same in both countries for all lens types. ECP and patient NC rates were highest for 2WR lens wearers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".