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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.