The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses

Optometry

Volumn 74, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 299-308

  Jutai, Jeffrey ^a   Day, Hy ^b   Woolrich, William ^b   Strong, Graham ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Assistive devices; Contact lenses; Outcome measures; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTACT LENS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT WITHDRAWAL; VOLUNTEER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EYE REFRACTION; HEALTH SURVEY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REFRACTION ERROR; STATISTICS; TREATMENT REFUSAL; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONTACT LENSES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; REFRACTION, OCULAR; REFRACTIVE ERRORS; TREATMENT REFUSAL;

EID: 0042238023     PISSN: 15291839     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Fisher P, Toczek M, Seeger BR. Technology for people with disabilities: a survey of needs. Assist Technol 1993; 5:106-18.
2. Scherer M. Living in the state of stuck: how technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Brookline Books, 1996.
3. Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Rehabil 1996;9:159-68.
4. Fonn D. Discontinuation of contact lens wear and its effect on the growth of the business. Contact Lens Spectrum 1996;(Suppl 4-5):117-29.
5. Olkin R. What psychotherapists should know about disability. New York: The Guilford Press, 1999.
6. Day H, Jutai J, Woolrich W, et al. The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil 2001;23:400-4.
7. Gitlin LN. Why older persons accept assistive technology or abandon its use. Generations 1996;19:41-6.
8. Gitlin LN, Schemm RL, Landsberg L, et al. Factors predicting assistive device use in the home by older people following rehabilitation. J Aging Health 1996;8:554-75.
9. Gitlin LN, Luborsky MR, Schemm RL. Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist 1998;38:169-80.
10. Day H, Jankey SG. Lessons from the literature: towards a holistic model of quality of life. In: Renwick R, Brown I, Nagler M, eds. Quality of life in health promotion and rehabilitation: conceptual approaches, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1996:39-50.
11. Fuhrer MJ. Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:481-9.
12. Jutai J. Quality of life impact of assistive technology. Rehabil Engineering 1999;14:2-7.
13. Jutai J, Rigby P, Ryan S, et al. Psychosocial impact of electronic aids to daily living. Assist Technol 2000;12:123-31.
14. Jutai J, Woolrich W, Campbell K, et al. User-caregiver agreement on perceived psychosocial impact of assistive devices. Proceedings of RESNA 2000, Orlando, Florida, 2000:328-30.
15. Gryfe P, Jutai J. Assistive technology and quality of life for clients with ALS/MND. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on ALS/MND, Vancouver, Canada, November 1999.
16. Gryfe P, Jutai J. PIADS: issues relating to research and practice. Paper presented at the Canadian Seating and Mobility Conference, Toronto, Canada, September 2000.
17. Jutai J, Gryfe P. Impacts of assistive technology on clients with ALS. Proceedings of RESNA '98, Minneapolis, Minn., 1998:54-65.
18. LaPlante MP, Carlson D. Disability in the United States: prevalence and causes. Disability Statistics Report No. 6. Washington, D.C.: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1996.
19. Weed K, Fonn D, Potvin R. Discontinuation of contact lens wear. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo, Center for Contact Lens Research, 1995.
20. Fonn D, Pritchard N, Brazeau D, et al. Discontinuation of contact lens wear: the numbers, reasons and patient profiles. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo, Ontario, Centre for Contact Lens Research, 1995.
21. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall Health, 2000:593-603.
22. Batavia AI, Hammer GS. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Devel 1990;27:425-36.
23. Rogers JC, Holm MB. Assistive technology device use in patients with rheumatic disease: a literature review. Am J Occup Ther 1992;46:120-7.
24. Lifchez R, Leiser L, Pendleton H, et al. Technology for the living environment. In: Redden MR, Stern VW, eds. Technology for independent living II: issues in technology for daily living, education and employment. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1982:83-92.
25. Nevins B. Grassroots rehabilitation technology and the delivery system: Gaps in the system. In: Redden MR, Stern VW, eds. Technology for independent living II: issues in technology for daily living, education and employment. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1982:107-11.
26. Scherer M, McKee B. But will the assistive technology device be used? In: JJ Presperin, ed. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America. Washington, D.C.: RESNA Press, 1989:48-59.
27. Cook A. Delivery of assistive devices through a client-oriented approach. In: Redden MR, Stern VW, ed. Technology for independent living II: issues in technology for daily living, education and employment. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1982:29-31.
28. Zola I. Involving the consumer in the rehabilitation process: easier said than done. In: Redden MR, Stern VW, eds. Technology for independent living II: issues in technology for daily living, education and employment. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1982:112-21.
29. Carroll M, Phillips B. Survey on assistive technology abandonment by new users (Cooperative Agreement No.H133E0016). Washington, D.C.: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1993.
30. Freeman SA, Field WE. Selection of rural assistive technology using a HyperCard-based knowledge system. Assist Technol 1994;6:126-33.
31. Phillips B, Broadnax DD. National survey on abandonment of technology (Cooperative Agreement No.H133E80016). Washington, D.C.: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1992.
32. Tewey BP, Barnicle K, Perr A. The wrong stuff. Mainstream 1994;19:19-23.
33. Turner E, Barrett C, Cutshall A, et al. The user's perspective of assistive technology. In: Flippo KF, Inge KJ, Barcus JM, eds. Assistive technology: a resource for school, work and community. Baltimore, Md.: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1995:283-90.
34. Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol 1993;5:36-45.
35. Riemer-Reiss M. Assistive technology discontinuance. Paper presented at the CSUN Center on Disabilities Conference, Los Angeles, March 2000.
36. 16.Hewett TT. A survey of contact lens wearers. Am J Optom Physiol Optics 1984;61:65-79.
37. Mathews J, Hodson G, Crist W, et al. Teaching young children to use contact lenses. J Appl Behav Anal 1992;25:229-35.
38. Beacher LL. The psychologic aspects in contact lens therapy. J AM OPTOM ASSOC 1967;38:185-9.
39. Cavanaugh D, Polse KA. Choices in contact lens wear: what is the state of the art? Health Learning Systems, Newsletter 4, 1989;Spring, 1(4): 1-4.
40. Sandry M, Rosenwasser H. The relationship of personality to contact lens adaptation. Optic J Rev Optom 1996;103:27-31.
41. Harris MG, Messinger JH. Personality traits and failure in wearing contact lenses. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1973;50:641-6.
42. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 1996;8:3-13.
43. Day H. Role of specific curiosity in school achievement. J Educ Psychol 1968;59:37-43.
44. McFarlin D, Baumeister R, Blascovich J. On knowing when to quit: task failure, self-esteem, advice and nonproductive persistence. J Personality 1984;52:138-55.
45. Scherer MJ. What we know about women's technology use, avoidance, and abandonment. Women and Therapy 1993;14:117-29.
46. Terry RL, Hall CA. Affective responses to eyeglasses: evidence of a sex difference. J AM OPTOM ASSOC 1989;60:609-11.
47. Brooks N., Users' perceptions of assistive devices. In: Smith RV, Leslie JH Jr, eds. Rehabilitation engineering. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1990:495-512.
48. Mehrabian A, Russell J. An approach to environmental psychology. Boston, Mass.: MIT Press, 1974.
49. Renwick R, Brown I, Raphael D. Quality of life: linking a conceptual approach to service provision. J Dev Disabil 1994;3:32-44.
50. Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive technology. Paper presented at the Center on Disabilities at California State University, Northridge Sixteenth Annual International Conference, "Technology and Persons with Disabilities," Los Angeles, March 2001.
51. Schulz R, Heckhausen J, O'Brien AT. Control and the disablement process in the elderly. J Soc Behav Personality 1994;9:139-52.
52. Williamson GM, Schulz R. Physical illness and symptoms of depression among elderly outpatients. Psychol Aging 1992;7:343-51.
53. Elliott TR, Umlauf RL. Measurement of personality and psychopathology following acquired physical disability. In: Cushman LA, Scherer MJ, eds. Psychological assessment in medical rehabilitation. Washington, D.C.: APA Books, 1995.
54. Fuhrer MJ. Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80:528-35.