Exploring Compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Using both quantitative and qualitative research methods, this article explores in detail the lens wear and care habits of adapted contact lens wearers and seeks a better understanding of what enables and constrains patient compliance with appropriate lens wear and lens care. METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases: a preliminary online questionnaire (quantitative phase), identifying types of noncompliance, and a series of sequentially conducted focus groups (qualitative phase), exploring constraints to, and enablers of, compliance. RESULTS: One hundred participants completed the online questionnaire; 12 of them also participated in one of four focus groups. The most frequently reported aspects of noncompliance revealed were failure to replace lenses when scheduled, inappropriate lens purchase and supply, sleeping while wearing lenses, use of tap water with lenses and failure to wash hands, failure to clean and replace cases regularly, and inappropriate use of care systems. Using an iterative process, a number of "themes" associated with noncompliance were identified in the focus group discussions. The most frequently occurring themes related to the consequences that may occur if patients were noncompliant with one or more aspects of their contact lens wear and the importance of receiving instructions regarding the most appropriate way to wear and care for their lenses. Most of the themes that emerged during the analysis were both constraints to, and enablers of, compliance. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the frequent types of noncompliance with contact lens wear and care while offering a greater understanding of what may constrain and enables contact lens wear and care compliance. Future qualitative studies may help eye care practitioners and the contact lens industry to develop strategies and tools to aid compliance and success in contact lens wear.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".