Short wavelengths filtering properties of sunglasses on the Canadian market: are we protected?

BACKGROUND: Exposure to solar radiation is a risk factor for multiple ocular pathologies. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is involved in ocular diseases, including pterygium, ocular surface squamous neoplasia, and cataracts. High-energy visible light (HEV) is associated with age-related macular degeneration. Ocular protection against solar radiation seems essential to protect our eyes against the adverse effects of those harmful rays. Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and the United States are the only regions with mandatory standards for UV transmission for sunglasses. Adherence to Canadian standards by sunglasses manufacturers is not mandatory. In this study, we evaluated the UV and visible transmission of sunglasses in the Canadian market to test their compliance with Canadian standards. METHODS: The transmittance of 207 pairs of sunglasses, divided in 3 categories according to their price range, was measured. RESULTS: We show that close to 100% of the sunglasses tested respect the Canadian standards. The average HEV transmittance is around 10%, regardless the price range. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that even if following Canadian standards is optional, most sunglasses sold on the Canadian market follow national and international standards. We also found that sunglasses filter around 90% of HEV. With the recent findings on the potential effects of HEV in retinal pathologies, we can ask whether this filtering capacity is sufficient to protect eyes from harmful HEV light. More work needs to be done to determine acceptable HEV light transmission limits to the existing Canadian standards.

Psychometric analysis of the TRANSIT quality indicators for cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess a selection of psychometric properties of the TRANSIT indicators. DESIGN: Using medical records, indicators were documented retrospectively during the 14 months preceding the end of the TRANSIT study. SETTING: Primary care in Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Indicators were documented in a random subsample (n = 123 patients) of the TRANSIT study population (n = 759). INTERVENTIONS: For every patient, the mean compliance to all indicators of a category (subscale score) and to the complete set of indicators (overall scale score) were established. To evaluate test-retest and inter-rater reliabilities, indicators were applied twice, two months apart, by the same evaluator and independently by different evaluators, respectively. To evaluate convergent validity, correlations between TRANSIT indicators, Burge et al. indicators and Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) indicators were examined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, and convergent validity. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability, as measured by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) was equal to 0.99 (0.99-0.99) for the overall scale score while inter-rater reliability was equal to 0.95 (0.93-0.97) for the overall scale score. Convergent validity, as measured by Pearson's correlation coefficients, was equal to 0.77 (P < 0.001) for the overall scale score when the TRANSIT indicators were compared to Burge et al. indicators and to 0.82 (P < 0.001) for the overall scale score when the TRANSIT indicators were compared to INESSS indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability was excellent except for eleven indicators while convergent validity was strong except for domains related to the management of CVD risk factors.

Facilitating Implementation of Interprofessional Collaborative Practices Into Primary Care: A Trilogy of Driving Forces.

Implementing interprofessional collaborative practices in primary care is challenging, and research about its facilitating factors remains scarce. The goal of this participatory action research study was to better understand the driving forces during the early stage of the implementation process of a community-driven and patient-focused program in primary care titled "TRANSforming InTerprofessional cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care" (TRANSIT). Eight primary care clinics in Quebec, Canada, agreed to participate by creating and implementing an interprofessional facilitation team (IFT). Sixty-three participants volunteered to be part of an IFT, and 759 patients agreed to participate. We randomized six clinics into a supported facilitation ("supported") group, with an external facilitator (EF) and financial incentives for participants. We assigned two clinics to an unsupported facilitation ("unsupported") group, with no EF or financial incentives. After 3 months, we held one interview for the two EFs. After 6 months, we held eight focus groups with IFT members and another interview with each EF. The analyses revealed three key forces: (1) opportunity for dialogue through the IFT, (2) active role of the EF, and (3) change implementation budgets. Decision-makers designing implementation plans for interprofessional programs should ensure that these driving forces are activated. Further research should examine how these forces affect interprofessional practices and patient outcomes.

Development of an interprofessional program for cardiovascular prevention in primary care: A participatory research approach.

BACKGROUND: The chronic care model provides a framework for improving the management of chronic diseases. Participatory research could be useful in developing a chronic care model-based program of interventions, but no one has as yet offered a description of precisely how to apply the approach. OBJECTIVES: An innovative, structured, multi-step participatory process was applied to select and develop (1) chronic care model-based interventions program to improve cardiovascular disease prevention that can be adapted to a particular regional context and (2) a set of indicators to monitor its implementation. METHODS: Primary care clinicians (n = 16), administrative staff (n = 2), patients and family members (n = 4), decision makers (n = 5), researchers, and a research coordinator (n = 7) took part in the process. Additional primary care actors (n = 26) validated the program. RESULTS: The program targets multimorbid patients at high or moderate risk of cardiovascular disease with uncontrolled hypertension, dyslipidemia or diabetes. It comprises interprofessional follow-up coordinated by case-management nurses, in which motivated patients are referred in a timely fashion to appropriate clinical and community resources. The program is supported by clinical tools and includes training in motivational interviewing. A set of 89 process and clinical indicators were defined. CONCLUSION: Through a participatory process, a contextualized interventions program to optimize cardiovascular disease prevention and a set of quality indicators to monitor its implementation were developed. Similar approach might be used to develop other health programs in primary care if program developers are open to building on community strengths and priorities.

Bevacizumab and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a treatment approach based on individual patient needs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration using an as-needed treatment regimen. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety two eyes of 184 patients. METHODS: Patients received an initial treatment of 3 monthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab or bevacizumab and retreatment is individually considered for each patient on the basis of optical coherence tomography, angiography, and clinical examination. RESULTS: Fifty eyes treated with ranibizumab and 142 eyes treated with bevacizumab were included. The average age of the patients at baseline was 76.9 ± 8 years and 76.4 ± 8 years in the ranibizumab and bevacizumab group respectively. Mean visual acuity improved from 0.69 to 0.55 logMAR at 12 months in the ranibizumab group and from 0.70 to 0.67 logMAR in the bevacizumab group. At 12 months, 92% of eyes treated with ranibizumab had lost fewer than 0.3 logMAR, as compared with 83% in the bevacizumab group. The ranibizumab group received a mean of 4.92 injections, compared to 4.75 injections in the bevacizumab group over 12 months. After the first 3 injections, 20% of patients in the ranibizumab group and 26% in the bevacizumab group never needed another injection. CONCLUSIONS: An approach based on clinical onset and choroidal neovascularization progression at angiography may provide benefit by reducing the number of intravitreal injections required.