Sixty-five percent of optometrists in Saudi Arabia relied on personal clinical judgment for prescribing hyperopia correction in children, despite existing international guidelines.
A recent cross-sectional study, published in BMC Ophthalmology, explored the prescribing patterns for hyperopia correction among optometrists in Saudi Arabia, comparing these practices with international guidelines. The study also examined the factors influencing optometrists' prescribing decisions.
The research utilized a 30-item online survey distributed to 600 practicing optometrists across Saudi Arabia, achieving 104 responses (52 males and 52 females) from 35 cities. The survey collected demographic data, current practices, and cycloplegia use, and asked respondents to indicate the minimum hyperopia level for prescribing spectacles to non-strabismic children.
Forty-four percent of optometrists deemed cycloplegic refraction essential for children under 12 years, while 56% extended this requirement to 18 years. There was variation in the dioptric values at which optometrists would prescribe correction. Many respondents indicated higher thresholds for younger children, with 49% prescribing for hyperopia above 4 diopters in 1-year-olds, while 60% would prescribe for hyperopia above 1-2 diopters in 11-year-olds. Symptoms and reading difficulties were the primary factors influencing the decision to prescribe, with 92% considering symptoms and 85% considering reading problems when determining prescriptions.
The study found variability in practice patterns regarding the prescription of spectacles for hyperopia in children among optometrists in Saudi Arabia. These findings suggest differences between local practices and international guidelines.
The study also highlighted that 65% of respondents relied primarily on their clinical judgment and experience rather than following specific guidelines. This divergence underscores the need for enhanced education and the development of national guidelines to standardize the management of hyperopia in children.
The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.
