Cross-sectional analysis reveals optometrists' practices towards high-energy visible light filtering lenses, indicating gaps in guideline support.
SIGNIFICANCE: High-energy visible light filtering ophthalmic products have been attracting much attention recently, yet there currently exists no evidence-based clinical guidelines to help optometrists make informed decisions about whether to recommend them. Understanding the knowledge and practice toward these products is thus important and was explored in this study. PURPOSE: Amidst much debate about high-energy visible light and commercially available ophthalmic products developed to attenuate it, this study investigated South African optometrists’ knowledge of, and practice towards, these ophthalmic products. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a 30-item online questionnaire was distributed via optometry social media platforms and associations. The questionnaire explored knowledge, practice patterns, and perceptions towards high-energy visible light filtering ophthalmic products. Descriptive statistics summarized the data, and inferential statistics assessed factors that influenced the prescribing of high-energy visible light filtering spectacle lenses. RESULTS: Of the 108 respondents, 92% prescribed high-energy visible light filtering spectacle lenses, and 88% perceived high-energy visible light as most important for regulating sleep. The majority of respondents considered high-energy visible light from electronic devices as a causative factor for computer vision syndrome (84%) and prescribed high-energy visible light filtering spectacles to electronic device users (95%). Most respondents believed that placebo effects played a role in patient experiences. High-energy visible light-filtering spectacles were the most common method used to attenuate high-energy visible light transmission, often guided by manufacturer product information (69%) and the internet (55%). Respondents were more likely to prescribe these spectacles if they believed advertisements concerning these products were accurate (odds ratio [OR] 6.66, p=0.001), were recent graduates (OR 1.06, p=0.031), or worked in corporate (OR 9.79, p=0.018) or independent (OR 8.77, p=0.046) private practice. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge and practice of South African optometrists regarding high-energy visible light and associated products mirrors the uncertainty about its effects that currently exists in this field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rampersad et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: