Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ): clinical validation in a historic cohort.

BACKGROUND: We recently developed the Amblyopia & Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ) to assess the quality of life in amblyopia and/or strabismus patients, and evaluated its content and criterion validity. The A&SQ was now validated clinically by correlating its outcome with past and current orthoptic parameters in a historic cohort of amblyopia and/or strabismus patients. METHODS: The cohort was derived from all 471 patients who were treated by occlusion therapy in the Waterland Hospital in Purmerend between 1968 and 1974 and born between 1962 and 1972. All children with insufficient visual acuity from the Waterland area had been referred to a single ophthalmologist and orthoptist. Of these, 203 were traced, and 174 filled out the A&SQ. In 137 of these, binocular vision, visual acuity, and angle of strabismus were reassessed 30-35 years after occlusion therapy. These clinical parameters were correlated with the five A&SQ domains: "distance estimation", "visual disorientation", "fear of losing the better eye", "diplopia", and "social contact and cosmetic problems". RESULTS: The current acuity at distance of the amblyopic eye and reading acuity of the amblyopic eye correlated significantly with all five A&SQ domains (significance level P = 0.01-P = 0.05). Weaker correlations were found for binocularity. In spite of the expectation that stereopsis should strongly correlate with the domain "distance estimation", and angle of strabismus with the domain "social contact and cosmetic problems", the acuity of the amblyopic eye was the overall dominant parameter. CONCLUSIONS: The adult acuity of the amblyopic eye seems the most important clinical determinant for quality of life in amblyopia and/or strabismus patients, even in domains of distance estimation, visual disorientation, and social contact and cosmetic problems, although intermediate determinants cannot be excluded.

Predictors and a remedy for noncompliance with amblyopia therapy in children measured with the occlusion dose monitor.

PURPOSE: Noncompliance is one of the limiting factors in the success of occlusion therapy for amblyopia. Electronic monitoring was used to investigate predictors of noncompliance, and, in a prospective randomized clinical trial, determined the effectiveness of an educational program. METHODS: Compliance was measured electronically during 1 week every 3 months in 310 newly diagnosed amblyopic children. The family's demographic parameters and the child's clinical parameters were assessed for their influence on the level of compliance. In addition to standard orthoptic care, children were randomized to receive an educational cartoon story, reward stickers, and an information sheet for the parents (intervention group), or a picture to color (reference group). These and the electronic device were distributed during home visits by researchers. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of compliance (actual/prescribed occlusion time) in the two groups. The secondary outcome measure was the influence of demographic and clinical factors on compliance. RESULTS: Compliance was associated with parental fluency in the national language, country of origin, level of education, and initial visual acuity of the child. During the first 1-week measurement period children in the intervention group had better compliance than the reference group had (78% +/- 32% vs. 57% +/- 40%; P < 0.0001), and fewer children were not occluded at all (3 vs. 23 in the reference group; P < 0.0001). This difference remained throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Poor parental fluency in the national language, a low level of education, and poor acuity at the start of treatment were predictors of low compliance. An educational program primarily aimed at the child improved compliance and reduced the number of children who did not comply with occlusion at all.

Objective survey of the prescription of occlusion therapy for amblyopia.

PURPOSE: To identify the variation within and consistency amongst orthoptists when prescribing occlusion therapy for amblyopia in an objective survey. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed with five case examples of amblyopic children and distributed at annual meetings of orthoptists in The Netherlands and Germany. It was filled in simultaneously within 15 min in complete silence to avoid any exchange of opinions between orthoptists that would reduce variability. For each case the orthoptists were asked to give their prescription of hours or days of occlusion. RESULTS: The questionnaire was filled in by 177 Dutch orthoptists and 227 German orthoptists. Their prescriptions of occlusion therapy were classified into five main regimens: part-time; part-time not every day; full-time; also occluding the amblyopic eye; alternating; and no occlusion therapy. The variation was large: the standard deviation was half the average prescribed hours of occlusion for each regimen in each of the five cases. All orthoptists were assigned a rank number for each of the five cases depending on whether their prescription was above or below average. These five rank numbers were not consistently above or consistently below average value per case. CONCLUSIONS: The number of prescribed hours of occlusion varied widely per regimen per case. Orthoptists were not consistently strict or lenient in their prescription of occlusion therapy.