[Digital eye strain. Functional symptoms and binocular balance analysis in intensive digital users]. / Stress oculaire induit par les écrans. Analyses des symptômes fonctionnels et de l'équilibre binoculaire chez des utilisateurs intensifs.

INTRODUCTION: In almost 50 % of cases, acute or chronic screen exposure is accompanied by symptoms of dry eye or binocular imbalance, known as digital eye strain. This phenomenon is described relatively little in the literature. The goal of this study is to determinate the effects of screen exposure on subjective comfort and binocular balance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, prospective, monocentric pilot study conducted from August to October 2019. The first part of the study focused on disturbances induced by short-term screen exposure (comparison between morning and evening examinations) between a control group (less than 5hours a day) and an exposed group (more than 5hours a day). The second part investigates the consequences of chronic exposure (screen exposure greater than 5hours a day, 5 days a week for one year) excluding pre-presbyopic and presbyopic patients (over 35 years of age). The study parameters consisted of an ocular discomfort questionnaire and binocular function tests (refraction, phoria, near point of accommodation and convergence, fusional vergence (FV), and binocular amplitude facility (BAF)). RESULTS: Short exposure : 52 participants were included. No significant difference was found between the control group (n=24, mean exposure=2.6 hr) and the exposed group (n=28, mean exposure=6.1 hr) for any of the objective parameters. The ocular discomfort score was highest in the exposed group for the following parameters: near (p=0.04) and intermediate (p=0.02) blurred vision and light sensitivity (p=0.04). Chronic exposure: 35 participants were included. The exposed group (n=12, mean exposure=6.7 hr) showed a decrease in FV (p=0.045) and BAF (p=0.038) compared to the control group (n=23, mean exposure=2.1 hr). DISCUSSION: Binocular balance is disturbed by intensive and chronic use of screens. Special attention must therefore be paid to these patients.

[Digital eye strain. Symptoms, prevalence, pathophysiology, and management]. / Perturbations oculaires secondaires à l'utilisation de supports numériques. Symptômes, prévalence, physiopathologie et prise en charge.

The digital revolution, which has been underway since the 1980's, is disrupting our daily routines with an exponential increase in the use of screens, which has not been without consequence to our visual system. Digital eye strain (DES), or computer vision syndrome (CVS), includes all the visual symptoms secondary to the use of digital devices. DES is present in at least 50% of regular users of digital media and is defined by blurred vision, difficulty focusing, ocular irritation or burning, dry eye, visual fatigue, headaches and increased sensitivity to light. Exposure time, age, female gender, and work environment are the main factors increasing its prevalence. Its pathophysiology, still poorly understood, is felt to be multifactorial and includes disturbances in the accommodative-convergence balance and changes in the ocular surface. Regarding accommodation and convergence, the studies are mostly old and their results heterogeneous. Conversely, many studies have shown an increase in the prevalence of dry eye in screen users. Although the retinal toxicity of blue light has been proven in in vitro models, the low level of evidence in the available studies does not allow it to be clearly correlated with the symptoms of DES. The objective of this review is to condense the knowledge available in the literature on the symptoms, prevalence, pathophysiology and management of DES.

[Court-ordered treatment: Analysing a complex practise through a literature review]. / Les soins pénalement ordonnés : analyse d'une pratique complexe à travers une revue de la littérature.

INTRODUCTION: In France, there are two main types of court-ordered treatment (COT) as far as mental health is concerned: obligations of treatment and injunctions of treatment. Obligations of treatment date back from 1958 whereas the law implementing injunctions of treatment is fairly recent as it was passed in 1998. Obligations and injunctions of treatment are two different types of COT that differ in terms of proceedings (obligations of treatment require no preliminary forensic psychiatric assessment; as for injunctions of treatment, they require the appointment of a coordinating medical doctor) and that are applied for different offences. However, both are psychiatric commitment procedures connecting the judicial, medical and social fields and their overall numbers have been on the rise. These common psychiatric practices have seldom been assessed and no review of the literature on the subject has ever been published. Better knowledge of such forensic practices is essential to their improvement and even to adjust the legal framework of these measures that are enjoying a boom. The purpose of this literature review is to define the prevalence of COT as well as the sociodemographic, criminal and psychiatric characteristics of those concerned by such measures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A review of the French medical literature on COT was carried out using Science Direct up to December 2013. The results of seven studies were included and analysed. This was completed with a review of the articles listed in social sciences and law databases (Cairn and Dalloz). RESULTS: It has become increasingly frequent to rely on psychiatric teams to implement COT while at the same time public mental health services have to face a surge in activity with restricted financial means. Obligations of treatment are far more common (about 20,000 court orders a year) than injunctions of treatment (about 4000 measures are currently being enforced). However the latter have showed an increase of 506% over the 2000 decade. Both measures mainly concern men (83-99%) who are rather low on the social scale. In about half of these men, no mental disorder was found, however the prevalence of personality disorders ranged from 22 to 65% while that of psychotic disorders was low. Injunctions of treatment concerned sex offenders (90% of cases) whereas obligations of treatment concern non-sexual abusers (40-70%) rather than sex offenders (20-30%). DISCUSSION: Psychiatric research on COT is still thin on the ground and its methodology does not allow rigorous evaluation though the use of such measures is growing. When confronted with people who have not sought any care or treatment, healthcare professionals are at a loss. In France, training in forensic psychiatry is inadequate and specialised healthcare (particularly for sex offenders) need improving to reach the level of those found in many other European countries. The purpose of psychiatric treatment differs from that of lawmakers whose aim is to prevent recidivism. However, better treatment consistency requires setting up partnerships between justice, health and social services. To improve connections, there are various avenues of work such as, for instance, the creation of coordinating medical doctors for injunctions of treatment in France or European experiments using a multidisciplinary approach to prevent recidivism in sex offenders. The framework of such a partnership remains to be created as it is part and parcel of COT but has not been provided for in the law. Healthcare jurisdictions as defined in the 2009 French National Health Law might provide an appropriate framework for mental health and law professionals to collaborate.