Patient and practitioner compliance with silicone hydrogel and daily disposable lens replacement in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess current recommendations by optometrists for replacement frequency (RF) of silicone hydrogels (SH) and daily disposable (DD) contact lenses in Canada, determine rates of non-compliance with recommendations by both the optometrist and patient, and investigate reasons for non-compliance. Methods: Survey packages were sent to optometrists in Canada who had agreed to participate. Patients completed survey questions regarding demographics and contact lens wearing patterns, including recommended and actual contact lens RF. Optometrists were asked to provide lens information and their recommendation for RF. Fifty-eight optometrists returned 654 surveys, of which 578 were eligible for analysis. Results: Seventy percent of patients were female with a median age of 32 years. Lens type distribution was 18% DD, 35% two-week SH, and 47% one-month SH. Six percent were worn for extended wear. Daily wear median wearing time was 12 hours/day, a median of five days/week for DD, seven days/week for SH (two-week and one-month). Optometrists’ recommendations were non-compliant with the manufacturers’ recommended RF for 6% of DD, 35% of two week, and 2% of one-month patients. Patients were non-compliant with recommendations from both the manufacturer and optometrist for 12% of DD, 43% of two-week, and 31% of one-month lens wearers. The most common reason for non-compliance was forgetting which day to replace lenses. Fifty-six percent thought a reminder system would help with compliance. A higher proportion of compliant patients followed the RF because of confidence in their optometrist. Conclusions: Optometrists generally recommended RFs consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations for DD and one-month SH lenses but often recommended longer intervals for two-week SH lenses. Patients were most compliant when wearing DD lenses and least compliant when wearing two-week SH lenses. Communication between the patient and optometrists concerning the risks of non-compliance, or initiating a reminder system might improve compliance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".