The Impact of Contemporary Contact Lenses on Contact Lens Discontinuation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Discontinuation or "dropout" from contact lens (CL) wear continues to afflict the CL industry. This study was conducted to determine whether the advent of new CL materials and designs has impacted the dropout rate and the reasons for discontinuation. METHODS: Current and lapsed CL wearers residing in Canada were recruited using Facebook to take part in an on line survey investigating CL wearing experiences during 2008 to 2010 and to establish the percentage of participants who temporarily and permanently discontinued CL wear during the period surveyed. RESULTS: Four thousand two hundred seven eligible surveys were received (64% female; median age 27 years). Forty percent had lapsed from lens wear for at least 4 months; however, 62% of the lapsed wearers (LWs) resumed wear. There were no differences between LWs and nonlapsed wearers (NLWs) with respect to gender; however, LWs were older, started lens wear when older, and had not worn lenses for as long as NLWs (all P<0.001). More NLWs than LWs wore silicone hydrogel CLs (49% vs. 38%, P<0.001) and more LWs than NLWs wore daily disposable lenses and hydrogel CLs (24% vs. 19% and 22% vs. 18%, respectively, P≤0.001). Primary reasons for discontinuation were discomfort (24%), dryness (20%), red eyes (7%), and expense (7%). Compliance with lens replacement was no different between LWs and NLWs (48% vs. 45%). CONCLUSIONS: About 23% of those surveyed had discontinued CL wear permanently. The primary reasons for dropping out continue to be discomfort and dryness. Dropout rates were lower in silicone hydrogel 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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".