ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2026
A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Myopia Management Practices Among Eye Care Practitioners in China.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMyopia management in China has expanded rapidly, largely driven by government initiatives to address the escalating myopia burden. Despite the availability of multiple interventions, practitioners face challenges in practicing myopia management due to the heterogeneity in practitioner training, practice settings, and geographical locations. A systematic, standardized, evidence-based practice would enhance myopia management practice. This study explored the perceptions of myopia management practices among practitioners in diverse practice settings and geographical locations within China. It compared the perspectives of optometrists and ophthalmologists on myopia management and how the identified barriers can be addressed.
methodsMixed-method research combining qualitative and quantitative approaches was employed in this study. Stage 1 qualitative study involved face-to-face semistructured interviews with 37 practitioners (27 optometrists and 10 ophthalmologists). Stage 2 involved a quantitative survey of 500 practitioners (401 optometrists, 99 ophthalmologists). Logistic regression models were used to explore possible differences between the perceived barriers.
resultsThe stage 1 analysis identified common barriers, including limited public awareness, treatment costs, poor compliance, and unpredictable clinical outcomes. Stage 2 validated these themes, emphasizing low public awareness, high treatment costs, lack of compliance, unpredictable outcomes, and excessive product availability. Significant geographical and practice-setting differences were evident, particularly in clinical guidance, commercialization, and instrument costs. Myopia control spectacles were most preferred and considered as the most effective treatment option.
conclusionsThis study concluded that effective myopia management practice in China necessitates improvements in public education, addressing treatment costs, enhancing patient compliance, managing unpredictable clinical outcomes, promoting a patient-centered approach, and expanding continuing education. Addressing these issues is crucial in delivering effective, accessible, and standardized myopia management care in different geographical locations and practice settings.
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.