KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 12

Survey of satisfaction of contact lens wearers: Development, validation and reliability

Adem UĞURLU
Sayfa
2972–2977
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Factor loads ranged from 0.359 to 0.770 and all were considered statistically significant. (KMO: 0.878p

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: To develop and validate a survey for the measurement of the effect of contact lenses on ocular physiological parameters, visualfunctions, appearance, and socioeconomic and psychological factors.Material and Methods: Between September 2018and July 2019, 392 participants who applied to Erzincan University Faculty ofMedicine Department of Ophthalmology were included in the study.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Participantswere aged 18 or above.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Factor loads ranged from 0.359 to 0.770 and all were considered statistically significant. (KMO: 0.878p
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: To develop and validate a survey for the measurement of the effect of contact lenses on ocular physiological parameters, visualfunctions, appearance, and socioeconomic and psychological factors.Material and Methods: Between September 2018and July 2019, 392 participants who applied to Erzincan University Faculty ofMedicine Department of Ophthalmology were included in the study. All patients were contact lens users at least one year. Participantswere aged 18 or above. A questionnaire containing 36 questions was created and distributed to contact lens users. All participantsanswered the questionnaire completely.Results: Of the 392 respondents, 202 (51.5%) were male and 190 (48.5%) were female. The total scores of correlations of 36 itemsranged from 0.310 to 0.598. Factor loads ranged from 0.359 to 0.770 and all were considered statistically significant. (KMO: 0.878p

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

UĞURLU, A. (2022). Survey of satisfaction of contact lens wearers: Development, validation and reliability. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 12, 2972–2977. https://ajindex.com/articles/447319

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Vitale S, Schein OD, Meinert CL,et al. The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. Ophthalmology 2000;107:1529-39
  2. Hoteling AJ, Nichols WF, Harmon PS, et al. Characterization and quantitation of PVP content in a silicone hydrogel contact lens produced by dualphase polymerization processing. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2018;106:1064-72
  3. Jones L, May C, Nazar L, et al. In vitro evaluation of the dehydration characteristics of silicone hydrogel and conventional hydrogel contact lens materials. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2002;25:147-56
  4. Tighe BJ. A decade of silicone hydrogel development: Surface properties, mechanical properties, and ocular compatibility. Eye Contact Lens 2013;39:4-12
  5. Papas E, Vajdic C, Austen R, et al. High-oxygentransmissibility soft contact lenses do not induce limbal hyperaemia. Curr Eye Res 1997;16:942-8
  6. Dumbleton KA, Chalmers RL, Richter DB, et al. Vascular response toextended wear of hydrogel lenses with high and low oxygen permeability. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:147-51
  7. Riley C, Young G, Chalmers R. Prevalence of ocular surface symptoms, signs, and uncomfortable hours of wear in contact lens wearers: The effect of refitting with daily-wear silicone hydrogel lenses (senofilcon a). Eye Contact Lens 2006;32:281-6
  8. Hays RD, Mangione CM, Ellwein L,et al. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute- Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument. Ophthalmology 2003;110:2292-301
  9. Fraenkel G, Comaish F, Lawless MA, et al. Development of a questionnaire to assess subjective vision score in myopes seeking refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 2004;20:10-9
  10. Erickson DB, Stapleton F, Erickson P,et al. Development and validation of a multidimensional quality- of-life scale for myopia. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:70-81
  11. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) Questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:769-77
  12. Glasson MJ, Hseuh S, Willcox MD. Preliminary tear film measurements of tolerant and non-tolerant contact lens wearers. Clin Exp Optom 1999;82:177-81
  13. Walline JJ, Bailey MD, Zadnik K. Vision-specific quality of life and modes of refractive error correction. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:648-52
  14. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. The performance of the refractive status and vision profile survey in a contact lens clinical trial. Ophthalmology