Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40322593›Full record

ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2025

Real-World Views of Patching Differ to Health Professionals': An Online Survey of Professionals, Patients, Teachers, Parents and Carers.

Daniel Osborne, Maddison McGowen, Jeremy Bradshaw, Helen Ellis, Megan Evans, James Stallwood, Joerg Fliege, Jay Self

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Daniel OsborneUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7427-3165
Maddison McGowenFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6844-4940
Jeremy BradshawUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9123-3602
Helen EllisUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1801-7559
Megan EvansUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0835-4144
James StallwoodFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Joerg FliegeFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4459-5419
Jay SelfUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1030-9963

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patching therapy is the most common treatment for amblyopia (lazy eye) and is unsuccessful for approximately 40% of patients, leaving them with life-long unilateral visual impairment and increased risk of bilateral visual impairment later in life. Poor adherence to patching therapy is a major contributing factor in treatment failure yet we lack real-world understanding as to why this is a problem outside of controlled research studies. Methods: In collaboration with patient contributors, we developed an online survey for past patients, parents/carers of children with amblyopia, health professionals, and schoolteachers. The survey included questions about when and where is best for children to wear the patch, the design of the patch, and facilitators and barriers to patching therapy. Results: We received 631 responses to the survey (259 health professionals, 213 parents/carers, 110 people who patched as a child, 7 teachers, and 42 people matched to multiple categories). Healthcare professionals thought weekday (54.4% versus 14.3% preferring weekend and 31.3% no difference) and school (54.4% versus 21.6% preferred home and 23.9% no difference) patching was more successful. Past patients (52.4%) favoured 'force' as a technique to encourage patching; more than both health professionals (7.7%) and parents or carers (19.7%). Patients rated 'people making fun' of them as an important barrier to patching. Conclusions: We describe surprising differences in stakeholders' responses to the survey questions about barriers to successful patching treatment. We suggest these differences are used as a guide for further work to explore stakeholder's social experience of patching.

Indexed as

AmblyopiaEye patchOcclusion therapySurvey

Identifiers

PMID40322593
PMCPMC12047624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.