Psychological causes of non-compliance with electronically monitored occlusion therapy for amblyopia
- S E Loudon1,
- J Passchier2,
- L Chaker1,
- S de Vos1,
- M Fronius3,
- R A Harrad4,
- C W N Looman5,
- B Simonsz1,5,
- H J Simonsz1
- 1Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 2Department of Medical Psychology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 3Department of Ophthalmology, JW Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- 4Bristol Eye Hospital, Bristol, UK
- 5Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Correspondence to Dr S E Loudon, Department of Ophthalmology, Room Ee 1607, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands; s.loudon{at}erasmusmc.nl
- Accepted 25 May 2009
- Published Online First 5 August 2009
Abstract
Aim: To analyse psychological causes for low compliance with occlusion therapy for amblyopia.
Method: In a randomised trial, the effect of an educational programme on electronically measured compliance had been assessed. 149 families who participated in this trial completed a questionnaire based on the Protection Motivation Theory after 8 months of treatment. Families with compliance less than 20% of prescribed occlusion hours were interviewed to better understand their cause for non-compliance.
Results: Poor compliance was most strongly associated with a high degree of distress (p<0.001), followed by low perception of vulnerability (p = 0.014), increased stigma (p = 0.017) and logistical problems with treatment (p = 0.044). Of 44 families with electronically measured compliance less than 20%, 28 could be interviewed. The interviews confirmed that lack of knowledge, distress and logistical problems resulted in non-compliance.
Conclusion: Poor parental knowledge, distress and difficulties implementing treatment seemed to be associated with non-compliance. For the same domains, the scores were more favourable for families who had received the educational programme than for those who had not.
Footnotes
-
Funding Health Research and Development Council of The Netherlands; MF: Albert von Metzler Foundation, Augenstern Association, Research Award of the German Society of Ophthalmology (DOG), Germany.
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
-
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam.
-
Patient consent Obtained.
-
▸ A supplemental file is published online only at http://bjo.bmj.com/content/vol93/issue11








